NationStates Jolt Archive

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades.

The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 degrees Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" [1]. The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc.

What do you want done? Do you care about earth enough that you want to see the next generation suffer from Global Warming?

I believe something must be done, but I don't know what to do.

Eat more steak. Cows are bad for the planet and tasty to consume.

Whether or not cows are bad for the planet, consuming them in great quantities actually works against your logic that killing and eating them will get rid of them. In fact, it does the opposite. By eating beef, there is a greater demand for livestock to be harvested, slaughtered, and injected with hormones to increase milk production and have them grow faster.

Truth is, we don't know what the effects of such actions are on human health. But it can't be good.

Whether or not cows are bad for the planet, consuming them in great quantities actually works against your logic that killing and eating them will get rid of them. In fact, it does the opposite. By eating beef, there is a greater demand for livestock to be harvested, slaughtered, and injected with hormones to increase milk production and have them grow faster.

Truth is, we don't know what the effects of such actions are on human health. But it can't be good.
*Raises eyebrow*

Please don't let this be about cows...

I think that global warming and controling carbon emissions is probably an issue best left to the individual states to decide. The federal government has no place getting involved. Neither do foreign governments.

I do what I can about environmental issues. Stuff like driving only when I have to (in a low MPG auto), recycling, low energy usage at home (a number of different ways), low water usage at home, signing petitions, spreading information...

I think that global warming and controling carbon emissions is probably an issue best left to the individual states to decide. The federal government has no place getting involved. Neither do foreign governments.
Please say you're being sarcastic or that you're talking about cows.

Please say you're being sarcastic or that you're talking about cows.
Sometimes I just want to post something absolutely stupid.

Sometimes I just want to post something absolutely stupid.
I understand. Now, we can be friends again.

Truth is, we don't know what the effects of such actions are on human health. But it can't be good.

Why not?

As an Albertan, I'm a big fan of genetically modified livestock.

A great book to read is Collapse by Jared Diamond

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780670033379,00.html

He discusses resources/enviorment as a function as to why societys have collapsed in the past

What made me think of it was this quote

Philosopy:
Eat more steak. Cows are bad for the planet and tasty to consume

In the book he talks about cows and how they use more resources (crops) than they produce in meat so they suck enviormentally.

... But they don't suck cut up into porterhouses and grilled to medium rare

Oh and... Everything you eat has been genetically modified through years of breeding and selective polination.

Also... leaving the states to decide on CO2 emissions has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. But... I'll tell you what - you fashion a huge plastic bag to put over individual states so the smog doesn't cross any borders and I'll pay for them

Might as well be about cows. What we need is more ground sqirrels. Their burrows break cows legs, the cows are killed, and thus ground squirrels help rid the planet of greenhouse gaseous cows. Ground squirrels make Earth a cooler place to live.

I don't know what to do.If you can, start shopping for the energy provider that does the least damage.
Monitor how much power your various junk uses.
Get gizmo's to automatically turn things off, if you can't be arsed to pull out every wire in the house a couple of times a day.

Those two are probably the most significant things you can do, and though your new energy company may be a bit more expensive, chances are you'll save it on the power you're no longer using. And it's no bother at all. Can be done in an afternoon.

If you're willing, though, there's plenty of things you can do. Most people don't really need their own car. Most people haven't really considered energy consumption when they shop for electric junk, from fridges & clock radios to dildo's & lightbulbs. Most people think they need to drive to the supermarket each day, and not just once a week.

You might also want to look into extra alternative energy sources, like a windmill in the backyard or on a nearby field, and solar panels on your roof. You could also consider changing to proper heat preserving windows, drop the central heating & look into new & improved isolation for your house.

All of those things can make a massive difference in the right circumstances.

Eat more steak. Cows are bad for the planet and tasty to consume.

Texas: Fighting Global Warming Through Steak Consumption

Might as well be about cows. What we need is more ground sqirrels. Their burrows break cows legs, the cows are killed, and thus ground squirrels help rid the planet of greenhouse gaseous cows. Ground squirrels make Earth a cooler place to live.
No!!! The squirrels are trying to take over!!! The albino ones are in control!! They're watching you!!!

Global Warming.. Hmm.

Something does have to be done. The stats just can't be ignored over and over again. Having said that, I'm not sure which way Governments and the like should go.

State of Fear by Michael Crichton.

State of Fear by Michael Crichton.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00006HZZE.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg by Walt Disney.

I like the fact that you polled us whether WE are doing anything because I think people often rely on governments too much especially when it comes to protecting the environment. Our whole way of life needs to change if we're going to reverse global warming. We can't be so carefree with driving and wasting electricity. We have to cut down on paper use so we don't eliminate the forests which absorb the CO2. We have to live more efficiently because honestly, I don't think the government's going to successfully force us to do that.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00006HZZE.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg by Walt Disney.
:confused:

:confused:
I thought we were being irrelevant.

I like the fact that you polled us whether WE are doing anything because I think people often rely on governments too much especially when it comes to protecting the environment. Our whole way of life needs to change if we're going to reverse global warming. We can't be so carefree with driving and wasting electricity. We have to cut down on paper use so we don't eliminate the forests which absorb the CO2. We have to live more efficiently because honestly, I don't think the government's going to successfully force us to do that.
It has to be a combination.

I thought we were being irrelevant.

I thought that was what posting in General constituted anyway. :cool:

I thought we were being irrelevant.
State of Fear basically disproves global warming. It was quite on the mark.

State of Fear basically disproves global warming. It was quite on the mark.
Except for being on the Mass Market Fiction shelf. For good reason.

Except for being on the Mass Market Fiction shelf. For good reason.
The plot and characters are fiction. The research is not. Michael Crichton is famous for these sorts of novels. My fave's Prey.

The plot and characters are fiction. The research is not. Michael Crichton is famous for these sorts of novels. My fave's Prey.
So, you trust what you read in a fiction book instead of the innumerable studies in peer reviewed journals. Because, if thats the case there is no point in arguing with you.

So, you trust what you read in a fiction book instead of the innumerable studies in peer reviewed journals. Because, if thats the case there is no point in arguing with you.
I believe his research from these peer reviewed journals. And if you can't accept differing opinions, I see no point in arguing either.

Some other opinions on State of Fear:

The best peer-reviewed science since Jurassic Park!"

--William Schlesinger, Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University


Filled with laugh-out-loud errors."

--Michael Oppenheimer, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Princeton University

The car chases drew me in, but the misleading graphs were the real fun."

--Dan Lashof, Science Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council

I believe his research from these peer reviewed journals. And if you can't accept differing opinions, I see no point in arguing either.

Dude, seriously. The other guy said it. Jurassic Park. QED.

You sound like one of those Da Vinci Code neophytes. Or people who get their news from the Daily Show/Colbert Report (or, on the other end, Ann Coulter and the like).

At the very most charitable, that fictional book contains a compilation of those sources which are least favourable to global warming. That's what would come out of the research, which wouldn't necessarily be factually wrong, just incredibly biased. And frankly, it's still a work of fiction.

I believe his research from these peer reviewed journals. And if you can't accept differing opinions, I see no point in arguing either.
Science isn't about a difference of opinion.

One of my favorite reviews of the book:
In State of Fear, however, Crichton is God, and his views become the book's laws of nature. That's never more apparent than in Crichton's numerous "conversion" scenes, in which characters who had previously believed in the dogma of global warming suddenly see the light. At one point in the novel, two such figures confide in one another following a legal cross examination:

"I mean, when I gave those answers, I wasn't saying what I really think. I'm, uh…I'm asking some--I'm changing my mind about a lot of this stuff."
"Really?"
"Yes," he said, speaking softly. "Those graphs of temperature, for instance. They raise obvious questions about the validity of global warming."
She nodded slowly. Looking at him closely.
He said, "You, too?"
She continued to nod.

Let's face it: Such writing is pure porn for global warming deniers, in much the same way that fictional accounts of UFO abduction skeptics converting into true believers titillate UFO fans.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/

The hype about 'global warming'* etc. is no better than this creationism crap. I have yet to see a single advocate of the impending 'catastrophic climate change' rubbish specify objective conditions under which thier theory could be falsified.

Beleive it if you wish. But if you do you are no better or worse than those creationism or intelligent design dudes.

If it was somehow proved that the earth WASN'T getting warmer or that CO2 DIDN'T cause this.
But it is and it did.
The base points are undisprovable now.

I understand. Now, we can be friends again.
Don't be so hasty.

:confused:
Pwned.

Heh, Einstein once said it only takes one thing to disprove everything.

heres a good read

http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/new_page_3.htm

Also go to Google and search stuff like

"Global warming is not happening"

"Global warming is fake"

"Globla Warming is a myth"

etc etc.

If you don't believe stuff in it, I suggest you tell some people to disprove some of the arguments.

I've read state of fear. Its got some good points, points that I haven't seen disproven.

I bought State of Fear because on I watched this semi-documentry show called 20/20 which interviews about Michael Crichton's new book which is State of Fear. He says the research was not fiction.

And as for the "blurb", I'd like to see points that disprove's Crichton's research rather than just say its all bullpoop.

I've read state of fear. Its got some good points, points that I haven't seen disproven.

Like what?

I dont have a liscence. Thats what I do for the environment.

Naw, seriously tho, i do always try to conserve energy, except with my laptop. I cant turn this thing off.

Are hybrid cars actually a lot better for the environment? Like, the energy that the battery runs on, doesnt that come from fossil fuels too? (this is a legitimate question. I'm sorry if its a stupid question, but as my bro says, theres no such thing as a stupid question. Only stupid people.)

I read through his book and everything he says in it he backed up with citations or real world research. A lot of the raw numbers came from NASA and other objective sources. Was he being selective? Hell yeah! Did he just make stuff up? Hell no. The book is loaded with footnotes and graphs and has an appendix with a list of every source used. It was one-sided and there's no way any sane individual would bring a laptop along to prove a point while they hop around the globe trying to stop the ELF on their own. In real life the US government would send in the clowns and that'd be the end of it for the main characters. But this is a work of fiction being used to convey a very real message: GW is being overhyped to scare people and the ends do not justify the means.

The hype about 'global warming'* etc. is no better than this creationism crap. I have yet to see a single advocate of the impending 'catastrophic climate change' rubbish specify objective conditions under which thier theory could be falsified.

Beleive it if you wish. But if you do you are no better or worse than those creationism or intelligent design dudes.

Pure and simple, you haven't read much on the topic then. Instead of arguing the evidence, you're denying it and ignoring it. It's impossible to convince you because you simply refuse to see the evidence. Your mind is made up, so you have no interest or curiosity for the subject.

If you really want to get to the truth, read every single day. Read the latest science. look for refutations. After a while, you'll see a pattern. All the arguments AGAINST global warming/climate change peter out after the first exchange. All the basic, first year questions that climate change skeptics pose are answered...and the skeptics NEVER follow up. They fall back, time and time again, on their already refuted arguments. If you read enough, that's what you see, but you have to read and read and read and read.

After a while, you'll see that your "there's no evidence!" argument is about as valid as arguing that the world is flat.

Again, though, you have to be curious and you have to read and read and read.

If it was somehow proved that the earth WASN'T getting warmer or that CO2 DIDN'T cause this.
But it is and it did.
The base points are undisprovable now.


That's unpossible!

Heh, Einstein once said it only takes one thing to disprove everything.

heres a good read

http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/new_page_3.htm

Also go to Google and search stuff like

"Global warming is not happening"

"Global warming is fake"

"Globla Warming is a myth"

etc etc.

If you don't believe stuff in it, I suggest you tell some people to disprove some of the arguments.

I've read state of fear. Its got some good points, points that I haven't seen disproven.

I bought State of Fear because on I watched this semi-documentry show called 20/20 which interviews about Michael Crichton's new book which is State of Fear. He says the research was not fiction.

And as for the "blurb", I'd like to see points that disprove's Crichton's research rather than just say its all bullpoop.
Google RealClimate.

I read through his book and everything he says in it he backed up with citations or real world research. A lot of the raw numbers came from NASA and other objective sources. Was he being selective? Hell yeah! Did he just make stuff up? Hell no. The book is loaded with footnotes and graphs and has an appendix with a list of every source used. It was one-sided and there's no way any sane individual would bring a laptop along to prove a point while they hop around the globe trying to stop the ELF on their own. In real life the US government would send in the clowns and that'd be the end of it for the main characters. But this is a work of fiction being used to convey a very real message: GW is being overhyped to scare people and the ends do not justify the means.

Yes, he was selective, because he left out data key to the various arguments, and you can't swing a cat without finding a finding an article in a SERIOUS science publication that just blows Crichton's arguments out of the water.

And, of course, Crichton has no response for those critics, because his only resort is to ignore the huge scientific holes in his arguments.

If anyone can find where Crichton responds to SPECIFIC criticisms of his work, I'll owe you a cookie.

I dont have a liscence. Thats what I do for the environment.

Naw, seriously tho, i do always try to conserve energy, except with my laptop. I cant turn this thing off.

Are hybrid cars actually a lot better for the environment? Like, the energy that the battery runs on, doesnt that come from fossil fuels too? (this is a legitimate question. I'm sorry if its a stupid question, but as my bro says, theres no such thing as a stupid question. Only stupid people.)
No, actually that's not a stupid question at all. I can't really answer it though. There are a bunch of websites out there that could though.

Google RealClimate.


Yup, RealClimate has real and specific criticisms of Crichton's work.

And again, there's nothing Crichton can say to defend his shoddy science.

I read through his book and everything he says in it he backed up with citations or real world research. A lot of the raw numbers came from NASA and other objective sources. Was he being selective? Hell yeah! Did he just make stuff up? Hell no. The book is loaded with footnotes and graphs and has an appendix with a list of every source used. It was one-sided and there's no way any sane individual would bring a laptop along to prove a point while they hop around the globe trying to stop the ELF on their own. In real life the US government would send in the clowns and that'd be the end of it for the main characters. But this is a work of fiction being used to convey a very real message: GW is being overhyped to scare people and the ends do not justify the means.
Is this your only source for news? A book of science fiction? Yes, I know that he has an appendix in the book. Please read this. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Flouting scientific opinion, Stossel promoted Michael Crichton's global warming skepticism
ABC News 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel used a report on novelist Michael Crichton's new book, State of Fear (HarperCollins, December 2004), to promote Crichton's view that global warming is "just another foolish media-hyped scare." In the 11-minute segment, Stossel did not present the opposing view, even though the summary of a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report commissioned by the Bush administration began: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."

Stossel started his December 10 20/20 report by casting Crichton as a brave iconoclast for "contradicting something most people believe and fear" and those concerned about global warming as gullible pawns of Hollywood and environmentalists. Stossel showed a clip of a supposedly typical woman on the street saying of global warming: "I'm thinking it's like the end of the world. I don't know." Stossel cut in: "She got her information from this recent movie The Day After Tomorrow. This movie was mocked by scientists, but serious people are worried." While scientists found the events depicted in The Day After Tomorrow -- a nightmare scenario in which global warming causes severe and sudden weather that ravages North America -- to be implausible, as the Associated Press reported, many embraced it as an opportunity to increase awareness about global warming. And "serious people" -- including scientists -- were worried about global warming long before the film was produced.

Stossel depicted skepticism about global warming as a viable response to respectable scientific research and opinion. He explained: "Crichton was once worried [about global warming] ... but then he spent three years researching global warming. And now, he's concluded it's just another foolish media-hyped scare. And many climate scientists agree with him." In fact, while some scientists agree with Crichton, many more believe that global warming is very real and a cause for legitimate concern. In addition to the National Academy of Sciences study, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 1996: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." A 2001 IPCC report recalled this earlier finding before noting: "Three of the five years (1995, 1996, and 1998) added to the instrumental record since the SAR [the 1996 report] are the warmest in the instrumental record of global temperatures, consistent with the expectation that increases in greenhouse gases will lead to continued long-term warming."

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change website notes: "The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities." And in a statement on Crichton's book, the Union of Concerned Scientists declared: "[T]here is a very strong consensus among the vast majority of climate scientists that global warming is under way and human activity is a primary cause."

Stossel and Crichton both misleadingly suggested that projections of the future global climate are comparable to a local news channel's "weather forecast." Stossel showed a clip of Crichton asking: "If somebody said, 'John, I've got a nice weather forecast for you for next year, this time next year,' you wouldn't [believe them]. How about this time a hundred years from now? I mean, are you going to give that any credence at all? No." But climate scientists' projections are nothing like "weather forecasts." Rather, scientists use competing models to predict the average surface temperature for the entire planet, as this IPPC graph shows.

Stossel highlighted Crichton's view that climate scientists have an incentive to exaggerate global warming in order to win grants. But he did not mention that the inverse is true: many global warming skeptics receive generous funding to downplay the problem -- for example, from energy companies with a stake in opposing regulation of fossil fuel emissions. Former Washington Post and Boston Globe reporter and editor Ross Gelbspan documented the phenomenon of dubious industry-funded scientists in his 1998 book, The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription (relevant excerpt here; more articles on industry-funded global warming skeptics available here).

Stossel opined that of all Crichton's novels, "State of Fear may be his biggest risk, because he points out that the people studying global warming have an incentive to exaggerate the problem to get grant money." The segment continued:

CRICHTON: Everybody gets their grant by doing that.

STOSSEL: And if you say, "there isn't a big problem," you're less likely to get money?

CRICHTON: Absolutely.

Neither Stossel nor Crichton explained how that purported "risk" could have any bearing on Crichton, who is a best-selling author many times over. Near the end of the segment, Stossel reported: "With State of Fear expected to be another No. 1 bestseller, Crichton, the shy celebrity, will be again in the public eye."

As Media Matters has noted, Stossel has previously been brought to task for making misleading scientific claims. In 2000, ABC was forced to correct a report in which Stossel claimed that tests were performed as part of a segment on organic foods; the tests never took place.

Crichton also promoted State of Fear during guest appearances on CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown on December 13 and NBC's Today on December 7.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412170002

Am I the only one who thinks that the "Global Warming is caused by humans and in the next decade we'll all die!" crowd is a bunch of Chicken Littles?

Am I the only one who thinks that the "Global Warming is caused by humans and in the next decade we'll all die!" crowd is a bunch of Chicken Littles?
Yes.

Am I the only one who thinks that the "Global Warming is caused by humans and in the next decade we'll all die!" crowd is a bunch of Chicken Littles?

Yeah, they are. Now, could you identify ANYONE who says that? Anyone here or in the scientific community? But hey, if you can't argue with what people are actually saying, feel free to keep making stuff up.

While it is all but a scientific certainty that the Earth's climate IS warming up, I would venture a guess that there are more logical and/or likely explanations than an increase in manmade CO2 emissions. After all, CO2 is a fairly WEAK greenhouse gas, as greenhouse gases go, and manmade emissions are only about 3% of total carbon dioxide emissions. Based on MY understanding of CO2's prevalence in the atmosphere and its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas, I believe that manmade CO2 is 1% or less of the total greenhouse effect.

But what do I know? I'm just some quack posting on some board. For an authoritative source on this subject,

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Another interesting facet of this argument is that water vapor is many times more effective as a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. Shall we eliminate as much atmospheric water vapor as we can? I hope not.

Yeah, they are. Now, could you identify ANYONE who says that? Anyone here or in the scientific community? But hey, if you can't argue with what people are actually saying, feel free to keep making stuff up.
Hey guys & gals, this seems like a good time for me to contribute something useful:

If i may ...
*ahem*
Are You a Global Warming Skeptic? Part III

As promised, here is the updated list of misgivings about whether global warming is occurring and whether it is caused by human activity. I've incorporated comments from the first and second threads and from private emails, and I've reshuffled some of the categories. I've done my best to be fair in representing the variety of opinion.

I think most people would agree that some of these arguments are stronger than others. What we need to do is find some way to rank them. As a start, I've set up a poll. After you take a look at the arguments, I invite you to go to the polling site and select which broad category you find the most persuasive. For completeness, I've included a response option for those who do think that anthropogenic warming is occuring, although I don't intend for this to be a broad survey of opinion. The poll is imperfect: for instance, the difference among categories II, III, and IV is a matter of degree. But I think it would help focus the discussion if we got a rough-and-ready sense of which line of argument is considered the most important.

View poll

(The poll is a bit of a hack, so please bear with me. Our blogging software doesn't have its own polling function, so I'm using a third-party site. Nor does our software allow embedded scripts or frames, so you have to click on the link to access the poll.)

Update (April 30th): The number of votes jumped from ~300 to ~2,000 overnight, so unless folks have developed a newfound interest in debating global warming on Saturday night, it looks like a bot or script kiddie is stuffing the ballot box. Nonetheless, the results of poll are pretty clear: about half the skeptics chose category II, "The present warming could be a natural uptick." So I think this will be the first area I turn to in my analysis.

[More:]

Warming may not actually be occurring. Most respondents seemed to agree that the global average temperature is rising, but some did not.

This past winter was so cold. Where's the warming?
Temperatures were higher 1,000 years ago in Western Europe.
The global average temperature has been decreasing since 1998. This is the start of a cooling trend predicted by Theodore Landscheidt.
Ground temperature readings are subject to systematic errors such as the urban heat island effect or localized natural temperature variation.
Ground temperature readings contradict satellite measurements.
Reports of changes in polar climate are anecdotal and could be localized effects.

The present warming could be a natural uptick. Respondents pointed out that climate conditions fluctuate because of volcanism, the obliquity cycle, changes in solar output, and internal (chaotic) variability. If pre-industrial fluctuations were natural, then industrial-age ones could be, too. One respondent put it this way: "Every time I read that we have had 'the hottest summer in 100 years' I wonder what caused that hot summer 100 years ago."

It is not, in fact, historically anomalous. Evidence suggesting as much is shaky.

The hockey-stick graph, which suggests that it is hotter now than at any time over the past millennium, is flawed. One respondent said the graph "has been proven false by many papers." Another: "There is no question that Mann [the graph's lead author] was guilty of bad mathematics." Others worried that, at least, the graph downplays the natural variability in climate.
Ice core data, which represent climate conditions over geologic time, are dubious. They sample only a few locations; appear to contradict paleobotanic (leaf stomata) data; show no climate effect from large volcanic eruptions (such as Toba 74,000 years ago or Yellowstone 650,000 years ago) even though there must have been such an effect; and are indirect, requiring long chains of inference to translate compositional proxies into temperature values.

It could be explained by any number of natural processes.

A rebound from the Little Ice Age
A rebound from the last Pleistocene glaciation
Variations in solar output. One correspondent wrote that temperature correlates "nearly perfectly" with insolation. Others pointed to a warming trend on Mars as another indication the sun must be to blame.
Orbital variations. One respondent wrote that "for the last 150 years Earth has been closer to the sun than previously."
Variations in cloud cover, which alter how much sunlight the planet absorbs. The cloud cover could, in turn, be explained by variations in cosmic ray flux, modulated by solar magnetic cycles.
Decreases in Earth's magnetic field strength
Natural methane release from sources such as termites and the recently discovered aerobic processes in plants

CO2 emissions cannot explain the warming. This is complementary to the previous category: instead of arguing for a natural cause, the respondents here argued against an anthropogenic one.

The emissions are too puny.

Human CO2 output pales in comparison to natural sources of climate variability. A number of respondents argued that it is hubris to suggest that humanity could have such a large effect on the planet. "Many people seem to have a very exaggerated view of how significant we -- and our activities -- are," one wrote.
Negative feedbacks stabilize the climate system against the direct effect of added CO2. One respondent wrote: "The Earth's ecosystem is far too robust to be affected by this minor change [in CO2 levels over the past century]."
Water vapor is far more important. By one estimate, CO2 can cause only 0.2% to 0.3% of the warming.
The greenhouse effect has saturated; further CO2 input does not increase it.
Although CO2 may be a factor, rising atmospheric concentrations can be attributed not to emissions but to reduced uptake by the oceans -- perhaps because human introduction of invasive species has decimated phytoplankton populations.

Historical climate data rule out a significant role for CO2.

If CO2 drives climate, changes in gas levels should be followed by changes in temperature. Yet paleoclimate data show the opposite: temperature changes precede gas-level changes.
High CO2 levels earlier in geologic history (for example, during the late Ordovician) did not correlate with high temperatures (cf. geocraft.com).
During the 20th century, temperature and CO2 were only weakly correlated. There were long periods of declining temperatures even as CO2 levels rose. Climate scientists attribute this to masking by aerosol cooling, but this explanation struck many respondents as ad hoc. Also, most human emissions came after 1950, yet the rise in temperature started earlier.
If CO2 causes warming, then the warmed air should rise, reducing air pressure at the surface. That is not observed. The correspondent who raised this objection cited Marcel Leroux's "Mobile Polar Highs" theory.

CO2 levels might be driven by temperature, rather than the other way around. For instance, warm oceans can hold less CO2.
The physics of CO2 absorption is too poorly understood to blame it for warming.

Climate models are unconvincing. In this category, I put the argument that, whatever the inherent plausibility of anthropogenic global warming, climate scientists have yet to present a solid case.

Models do not capture the complexity of the climate system.

Weather forecasting is so unreliable. How could long-term climate forecasting be any better? In both cases, small variations in the initial conditions lead to large variations in outcome.
The range of model predictions is wide, casting doubt on their reliability.
Models can't predict El Nino.
Models can't explain past data. One respondent wrote: "Claiming the models can predict climate is either wishful thinking, ignorance or deceit." Others were milder. One of the few respondents to say what could change their minds wrote: "I'd like to see environmental data from the 1970s fed into today's climate models and the 'predictions' match what actually happened." Another asked whether models can explain climate over geologic time.
Aerosol effects, being so unconstrained, are a fudge factor in the models.
Models are not proof. They are so shot-through with assumptions and simplifications that they could be used to prove anything. Being non-falsifiable, they are not really science.

Proper application of the scientific method does not support anthropogenic warming.

Scientists rely too heavily on the correlation of CO2 levels with temperature. Correlation is not causation.
Climate science is uncertain. Uncertainty means we know nothing. Therefore climate science knows nothing.
Climate science is certain -- namely, that warming is not occurring. One respondent assessed the chance of anthropogenic global warming as "about the same probability as that of an asteroid like the one that killed the dinosaurs hitting the Earth in the next 100 years." That is roughly a 99.9999% level of certainty.
The burden of proof rests with those claiming anthropogenic warming. Because mitigating climate change would entail huge costs, and because past warming episodes have been natural, it is up to climate scientists to dispel all reasonable doubts -- not to climate skeptics to prove them wrong.

Warming is a good thing, so we shouldn't try to stop it. It might be good in an absolute sense or in a relative one.

It will increase humidity in tropical deserts and improve the lot of high-latitude regions.
Higher CO2 levels encourage plant growth, and that's good.
Historically, humanity has done better when the climate was warm, such as at the height of the Roman Empire, than when it was cold, such as the early medieval period.
For most of its history, Earth has been warmer than today. Animals and plants seemed to do just fine in those periods of warm climate. One respondent wrote: "Our present chilly climate is the aberration when judged on a geological time scale."
It staves off the next glaciation, which we're due for.
Claims that global warming has worsened storm damage, or will do so, are overblown. If damage seems to have increased, it is simply because more people live in storm-prone regions and their plight is more widely publicized than before.
Attempts to stop global warming would do more damage they than avert. Warming might be bad, but it is better than the alternative, be it Kyoto or some other mitigation strategy. The underlying assumption here is that the null strategy -- letting people move away from shorelines as sea levels gradually rise and adopt non-carbon energy sources as commodity prices dictate, without any explicit climate policy -- carries the least net costs.

Kyoto is useless, or worse. Many of the complaints were specific to the Kyoto Protocol, which has set up a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. Although these comments don't really pertain to the science, I include them because some respondents linked their mistrust of climate science to their misgivings about Kyoto.

It would bankrupt us. One correspondent said Kyoto mandates "a practically unlimited expenditure of effort (and money, naturally)."
It may not bankrupt us per se, but it would divert resources from other, better-established priorities.
It is an inefficient response to climate change. We are better off dealing with the consequences directly. For instance, an increased malarial threat could be handled by mosquito control measures.
It reeks of social engineering: holier-than-thou environmentalists telling people how to lead their lives.
It would reduce warming by 0.02 degrees C or a similarly meager amount.
It exempts developing countries, whose emissions intensity and growth rates are much higher than those of developed countries. In effect, Kyoto lets developed countries outsource their emissions.
It "demands that developed countries send money to Third World dictators for greenhouse gas credits."
People may claim to support it, but their energy-wasting habits belie their true sentiments.

People who argue that human activity causes global warming can't be trusted. Now we get to what seems to be the single biggest complaint: doubts as to the competence or motivation of scientists and others who accept anthropogenic climate change. Many respondents perceive scientists as jumping to conclusions, haughtily dismissing doubters, refusing to take the time to explain things, and adopting absolutist positions. One respondent wrote: "What data would convince me? I don't know if data is the problem as much as needing to perceive an objective voice."

Climate scientists have lost their credibility by making bad calls.

They predicted an imminent ice age in the 1970s.
They falsely attributed the ozone hole to CFCs. The respondent who raised this point wrote that the ozone hole was clearly not due to CFCs because it began to recede before CFCs were phased out.
They uncritically accepted the hockey-stick graph, which was clearly "fraudulent" from the start.
They were too quick to connect last year's hurricane season with global warming.
Scientists in general have been guilty of doomsaying over such questions as overpopulation, and they have been consistently wrong.

Climate scientists behave unscientifically.

They do not double-check their work.
They are caught up in groupthink. Anthropogenic warming has become the default explanation, and it is hard even for well-intentioned researchers to draw unbiased conclusions. Some respondents singled out the IPCC as prone to seek out evidence that supports its preconceived ideas. Others complained that scientific journals do not publish contrary data and alternative explanations, presumably because of negative peer reviews by dogmatic climate scientists.
They are arrogant. Researchers, wrote one respondent, "go ballistic if anyone voices doubt." Another said: "A person with doubts, or simply unanswered questions, is shut out of the debate. One can only ask questions when it is phrased with unwavering support for warming."
They are hypocritical, jet-setting to conferences in exotic locales and staying in five-star hotels, no matter how much it wastes money and contributes to greenhouse emissions.
They have let themselves get caught up in activists' agendas.
They themselves have an activist agenda. Respondents were suspicious that global climate change fits a little too conveniently into a certain environmentalist narrative that holds that humans can do no good (least of all if those humans are Republicans) and that the answer lies in government intervention. Because the U.S. is often singled out for its policies, there is a whiff of anti-Americanism, too.
They have set up propagandistic websites such as RealClimate.org.
They have a financial interest in global warming. Now we're starting to get into more serious accusations that scientists push global warming because it helps them curry favor with granting agencies. One person wrote: "There are no grants available to disprove global warming.... [Researchers] gather at government's teats for monetary nourishment, telling mommy whatever she wants to hear." Kyoto, too, has created vested interests and a strong incentive to "massage data." A milder version of this critique holds that even if scientists are not overtly corrupt, the financial incentives cannot help but exert an influence.
They conceal their data. Finally, we come to the most serious accusation of all: that researchers collude to keep the real data from the public. One respondent complained that the Climatic Research Unit raw temperature data are "kept under wraps," so outside observers cannot verify that selection effects were properly accounted for. Another said: "Try getting the raw data for the 'hockey stick' graph." One source of these accusations appears to be climateaudit.org.

Activists and journalists have gone overboard.

Experts do not, in fact, argue that humanity is the main cause of global warming.
The media sensationalizes warming. It focuses on worst-case scenarios and presents tentative research as definitive.
The IPCC reports, especially the summaries for policymakers, have been heavily distorted by political editing.
Scientific American itself is hopelessly biased, even "incapable of rational analysis."
Scientific American lost its own credibility on the subject when it printed a one-sided critique of Lomborg's book. One respondent claimed that the magazine "threatened legal action to stifle debate" about Lomborg's book.

I should point out that the above taxonomy doesn't capture all the responses. Some people simply asked questions about climate science, proposed that other human activities be incorporated into models, or commented on the motivations of the skeptics themselves. We can return to these thoughts as the discussion unfolds.

---
For anyone interested in the implied links, i've got 'em.

Yeah, they are. Now, could you identify ANYONE who says that? Anyone here or in the scientific community? But hey, if you can't argue with what people are actually saying, feel free to keep making stuff up.
Well Al Gore, but he's not a scientist nor an NSer so he doesn't matter. And all the personal attacks on MC are getting pretty old pretty damn fast. It's called ad hominem and while it can be very persuasive, it's still a fallacy.

Well Al Gore, but he's not a scientist nor an NSer so he doesn't matter. And all the personal attacks on MC are getting pretty old pretty damn fast. It's called ad hominem and while it can be very persuasive, it's still a fallacy.
You don't have to take it personal for him to still be wrong.

*ahem*

The Environmental Wars: Preliminary Skirmishes

Not much seems to roil our readers' passions as much as discussions of global warming, environmental policies, and the influence of politics on science (and vice versa). With that in mind, I give you... The Environmental Wars, brought to you by Michael Shermer and the Skeptic Society!

Why are we still debating climate change? How soon will we hit peak oil supply? When politics mix with science, what is being brewed? Join speakers from the left & the right, from the lab & the field, from industry & advocacy, as we air the ongoing debate about whether human activity is actually changing the climate of the planet.

From June 2-4, 2006, the Environmental Wars conference will host scientists, writers, environmentalists, and thinkers from all points along the environmental spectrum at the California Institute of Technology for questions, answers, and opinions.

The speaker list is an inflammable mix that includes the novelist and self-appointed climate expert Michael Crichton, ABC 20/20 host John Stossel, Nobel laureate David Baltimore, Chris ( The Republican War on Science ) Mooney, Ronald Bailey of Reason, physicist and science fiction writer Gregory Benford, and more. No end of fun there!

[More:]

I see that over at Chris Mooney's blog, The Intersection, he has a couple of posts ( 1, 2) concerning the Environmental Wars event, which elicited considerable commentary on whether Michael Shermer has an underlying agenda in organizing such an event. For example, some people are wondering why in the world it would be appropriate to invite Crichton as a keynote speaker if the goal is to discuss real environmental science.

Now, I think I've established that I'm no fan of Crichton's climate science-denying anti-environmental drivel [changed; see Comments for why], but even I don't mind his being there. For one thing, I'd hope to see him shellacked by more genuinely informed people at the event. For another, I understand the simple commercial advantages of having big name people like Crichton among the speakers to help draw an audience.

But mostly I see the inclusion of extremely different viewpoints at this event as an extension of Skeptic magazine's approach to debunking nonsense. Skeptic lets the proponents of even really disrespectable ideas (Holocaust deniers and the like) engage in debate with their critics. I don't think it's the only way to advance understanding, but I respect it.

Since Michael Shermer is SciAm's resident Skeptic columnist, I asked him for his opinion of the discussion over at the Intersection. Here's what he told me:

I understand there is some controversy over us including Michael Crichton and John Stossel on our program, which I expected--that's why we are calling the conference "the environmental wars." Ever since I was in college in the mid-1970s the subject has been loaded with political controversy, although in my opinion, over the decades the environmental "left" has done just as much distorting of the facts as the skeptical "right" has been accused of doing lately, and so I fail to see why having both "left wing" speakers and "right wing" speakers would not be a healthy thing. In point of fact, most of our speakers have no wings at all, but attendees can judge for themselves.

And don't forget that we have the Caltech president and Nobel laureate David Baltimore speaking, who has been openly critical of the Bush administration's attitudes toward science in general and the environment in particular. And David Goodstein, the Caltech physicist whose book "Out of Gas" is a brilliant treatise on the question of "peak oil," which many think we have already passed. And Paul MacCready, who has devoted a career toward developing alternative fuel technologies, including designing GM's first electric car. And Chris Mooney, whose bestselling book The Republican War on Science is a rigorous indictment of the Bush administration's environmental policies. And others. If anything, even with Crichton and Stossel, the overall slant of the conference is decidedly left leaning, so we can hardly be accused of unfair play. Finally, why is it always the left who whines so much about these matters? Why haven't I received a single complaint from anyone on the right about including all the noted lefties on our speaker's list? In the end, only the data counts, so come to Caltech the first weekend in June and decide for yourself what the data really says. You can register now at: www.environmentalwars.org

What can I say? If I were going to be in the Los Angeles area June 2-4, I'd try to be there. Agree or disagree, it would make for an interesting few days.

(By the way, don't miss Michael's Skeptic column in the June issue of SciAm, in which he discusses his own rather recent change of mind on the subject of global warming.)

Oh yeah ... for reference AGAIN ...
here's a list of worthwhile argument seasoning:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481034&highlight=Straughn
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=477838&highlight=Straughn
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474040&highlight=Straughn
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473488&highlight=Straughn
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471807&highlight=Straughn
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479252&highlight=Straughn
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=484779&highlight=Straughn


I suspect there'll be more after this "skirmish".

Thnx.
Enjoy.

Well Al Gore, but he's not a scientist nor an NSer so he doesn't matter. And all the personal attacks on MC are getting pretty old pretty damn fast. It's called ad hominem and while it can be very persuasive, it's still a fallacy.
Attacking his lack of scientific knowledge of global warming is ad hominem. Wow. Well, you know what? Michael Crichton is just too freaking tall for me to take him seriously. (I still like Jurassic Park, though.)

Name two things on this list (I know most of you won't like number 10) which you think is a bad idea and why. Personally, I think if everyone who was concerned picked just five things off the list that the problem would begin to be solved.

1. The car you drive: the most important personal climate decision.
When you buy your next car, look for the one with the best fuel economy in its class. Each gallon of gas you use releases 25 pounds of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Better gas mileage not only reduces global warming, but will also save you thousands of dollars at the pump over the life of the vehicle. Compare the fuel economy of the cars you're considering and look for new technologies like hybrid engines.


2. Choose clean power.
More than half the electricity in the United States comes from polluting coal-fired power plants. And power plants are the single largest source of heat-trapping gas. None of us can live without electricity, but in some states, you can switch to electricity companies that provide 50 to 100 percent renewable energy. (For more information go to Green-e.org.)


3. Look for Energy Star.

When it comes time to replace appliances, look for the Energy Star label on new appliances (refrigerators, freezers, furnaces, air conditioners, and water heaters use the most energy). These items may cost a bit more initially, but the energy savings will pay back the extra investment within a couple of years. Household energy savings really can make a difference: If each household in the United States replaced its existing appliances with the most efficient models available, we would save $15 billion in energy costs and eliminate 175 million tons of heat-trapping gases.


4. Unplug a freezer.
One of the quickest ways to reduce your global warming impact is to unplug the extra refrigerator or freezer you rarely use (except when you need it for holidays and parties). This can reduce the typical family's carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 10 percent.


5. Get a home energy audit.
Take advantage of the free home energy audits offered by many utilities. Simple measures, such as installing a programmable thermostat to replace your old dial unit or sealing and insulating heating and cooling ducts, can each reduce a typical family's carbon dioxide emissions by about 5 percent.


6. Light bulbs matter.
If every household in the United States replaced one regular light bulb with an energy-saving model, we could reduce global warming pollution by more than 90 billion pounds over the life of the bulbs; the same as taking 6.3 million cars off the road. So, replace your incandescent bulbs with more efficient compact fluorescents, which now come in all shapes and sizes. You'll be doing your share to cut back on heat-trapping pollution and you'll save money on your electric bills and light bulbs.


7. Think before you drive.
If you own more than one vehicle, use the less fuel-efficient one only when you can fill it with passengers. Driving a full minivan may be kinder to the environment than two midsize cars. Whenever possible, join a carpool or take mass transit.


8. Buy good wood.
When buying wood products, check for labels that indicate the source of the timber. Supporting forests that are managed in a sustainable fashion makes sense for biodiversity, and it may make sense for the climate too. Forests that are well managed are more likely to store carbon effectively because more trees are left standing and carbon-storing soils are less disturbed.


9. Plant a tree.
You can also make a difference in your own backyard. Get a group in your neighborhood together and contact your local arborist or urban forester about planting trees on private property and public land. In addition to storing carbon, trees planted in and around urban areas and residences can provide much-needed shade in the summer, reducing energy bills and fossil fuel use.


10. Let policymakers know you are concerned about global warming.
Our elected officials and business leaders need to hear from concerned citizens. Sign up for the Union of Concerned Scientists Action Network to ensure that policymakers get the timely, accurate information they need to make informed decisions about global warming solutions.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/ten-personal-solutions.html

lets do all that and 10 years later, we're running out of energy supplies. HELP!!!

Shut up about what tree-hugging hipipies think the cause is. We should start researching what the cause really is, instead of being slaves to the hippies because of their ridiculous theories.

Cars OUT.
TV OFF.
Stereo - REMOVED.
etc etc.

Total home-energy and transportation consumption reduced to about 40 pence per day.

Shut up about what tree-hugging hipipies think the cause is. We should start researching what the cause really is, instead of being slaves to the hippies because of their ridiculous theories.
Yeah! Friggin' hippies and their "round-earth" baloney!
Dagnab fiends wanting to bring about some kind of "tolerance" and "social equality" and "concern for humankind" and all that other bog- er, hogwash!
What kind of world do they think this is? Pansies.

While it is all but a scientific certainty that the Earth's climate IS warming up, I would venture a guess that there are more logical and/or likely explanations than an increase in manmade CO2 emissions. After all, CO2 is a fairly WEAK greenhouse gas, as greenhouse gases go, and manmade emissions are only about 3% of total carbon dioxide emissions. Based on MY understanding of CO2's prevalence in the atmosphere and its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas, I believe that manmade CO2 is 1% or less of the total greenhouse effect.

But what do I know? I'm just some quack posting on some board. For an authoritative source on this subject,

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Another interesting facet of this argument is that water vapor is many times more effective as a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. Shall we eliminate as much atmospheric water vapor as we can? I hope not.

You're right. The other 99% of the greenhouse effect, among other climatological inputs, is what keeps the Earth from being -273 degrees Celsius at night. SO all the Natural greenhouse gasses, including water vapor, are needed. When you add more on top, you increase the greenhouse effect.

This has been Climatology 101 for beginners.

I think that global warming and controling carbon emissions is probably an issue best left to the individual states to decide. The federal government has no place getting involved. Neither do foreign governments.


Hehe that's funny that. It is a problem for the whole globe to sort out, it is called global warming, not state warming.

The hyperbole about global temperature is just another chance for the enviro-wackos to get recognized. The problem is that they have a few quacks with thermometers helping them out this time. Global warming has never been an environmental issue, it's a political one.

I think that global warming and controling carbon emissions is probably an issue best left to the individual states to decide. The federal government has no place getting involved. Neither do foreign governments.

Trying to fit a global problem into national or lesser structures is quite silly. We have to find global solutions and then apply them in the local level. Kyoto is a first step.

"Think globally, act locally"

I read through his book and everything he says in it he backed up with citations or real world research. A lot of the raw numbers came from NASA and other objective sources. Was he being selective? Hell yeah! Did he just make stuff up? Hell no. The book is loaded with footnotes and graphs and has an appendix with a list of every source used. It was one-sided and there's no way any sane individual would bring a laptop along to prove a point while they hop around the globe trying to stop the ELF on their own. In real life the US government would send in the clowns and that'd be the end of it for the main characters. But this is a work of fiction being used to convey a very real message: GW is being overhyped to scare people and the ends do not justify the means.


Ask your selfs this, to scare people into doing what and for what reason?

Fact: The world is getting hotter.
Fact: CO2 immisions do not help this state at all.

This is true, this is very true, this is fuckin' true.

Now answer me this, why so sceptical? why such hard feelings about it? What is it that makes you want to disbelive it sooooooo much?

If it because you do not like the left or it's politics, then you are fools. Letting your dislike for a certian type of people fool you into denouncing what is plain and right in front of you is foolish in the extreame. Go out with your thermomiters, and measure the temp every day for two years then come back and say ohhh shit man yeah you're right you know. Foolish people.

i work for a renewable energy business - i'm doing my bit

and the eat more cows thing is a good sugestion

The hyperbole about global temperature is just another chance for the enviro-wackos to get recognized. The problem is that they have a few quacks with thermometers helping them out this time. Global warming has never been an environmental issue, it's a political one.

Mmmahhahhaahhh and that is fuckin' funny.

one volcano does more for "global warming" than decades of "human" stuff - let's hop on preventing volcano eruptions

:headbang:

It has to be a combination.

True. It would be much better if the government was united in the cause. But it's kind of like the chicken and the egg because to get the government to unite we need to show them that we have no interest in making global warming worse anymore. Right now the government is divided because the people are divided. A lot of people still think there's no threat. Some think there's a moderate threat and the rest think the threat is imminent. Still then you have people who debate the cause of the threat. The way I see it, pollution doesn't do us good either way, heh.

one volcano does more for "global warming" than decades of "human" stuff - let's hop on preventing volcano eruptions

:headbang:

One vocano, does mememememenana!

Man its strange how you people want to belive only the science that makes you right huh! Go on tell me how do you know what you said is true and not some sound bite you have just picked up?

One vocano, does mememememenana!

Man its strange how you people want to belive only the science that makes you right huh! Go on tell me how do you know what you said is true and not some sound bite you have just picked up?

I've also heard that theory so I'd be interested to hear someone verify if it's true or not.

As an Albertan, I'm a big fan of genetically modified livestock.

Well, looks like we have SOMETHING in common. I'm an Albertan too, but clearly I can appreciate the dire facts of global warming. But of course, all of Alberta is Conservative, so it doesn't surprise me that most people out west could care less.

That's besides the point, however. Simply put, anyone who ignores global warming or refuses to acknowledge its reality, it is due to their debilitating complacency. Fact is every step DOES make a difference, regardless of how big or small. If everyone shares the same "I can't make a difference" attitude, then of course nothing will change. But the climate WILL continue to change.

Margaret Atwood once said there is a difference between ignoring and ignorance. Ignoring you have to work at. That's what climate change nay-sayers are doing and you aren't doing yourself any favours.

lets do all that and 10 years later, we're running out of energy supplies. HELP!!!

It's impossible to run out of energy supplies when we have alternative energy; solar power alone gives us 1 trillion BOE equivalent (that's 30 years of petroleum) every three hours so I think we're alright on that front.

one volcano does more for "global warming" than decades of "human" stuff - let's hop on preventing volcano eruptions

:headbang:
If you didn't hit your head against a wall so much, you'd be able to think straight.

I've also heard that theory so I'd be interested to hear someone verify if it's true or not.
Well, true in what way? Some eruptions do effect the climate.

"One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) . However, over very long times scales (millions of years), variations in vulcanism are important for the eventual balance of the carbon cycle, and may have helped kick the planet out of a 'Snowball Earth' state in the Neo-proterozoic 750 million years ago.


....

Volcanoes can provide great tests for climate models, and indeed, predictions of the impacts of Pinatubo (before they happened) proved very accurate (about a 0.5 C cooling after about 18 months) - for instance in Hansen et al (1992). Other studies have examined the dynamic impacts of volcanic eruptions (the 'winter warming' - Robock and Mao, 1992; Shindell et al 2004), the water vapour feedback as the planet cools (Soden et al, 2001), the impact of high-latitude eruptions (Oman et al, 2005), impacts on ENSO (Mann et al, 2005) and have shown that the models work pretty well.

So what of the current eruptions? Well Bezymianny appears to be explosive enough, but its latitude (55 N) will tend to preclude it having any big climate impact. Merapi is in the right location but doesn't appear (so far) to be explosive enough to put anything in the stratosphere, and so this too seems unlikely to impact climate. At some point, there will be another climatically important eruption, but it hasn't happened yet... "
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/

Climate Change and Earthquakes:

"Scientists say melting glaciers could induce tectonic activity.

The reason? As ice melts and waters runs off, tremendous amounts of weight are lifted off of Earth's crust. As the newly freed crust settles back to its original, pre-glacier shape, it can cause seismic plates to slip and stimulate volcanic activity according to research into prehistoric earthquakes and volcanic activity.

Sharon Begley of The Wall Street Journal recently wrote about the subject in her "Science Journal" column, noting that new research suggests that when ice sheets retreated some 10,000 years ago, volcanoes in the Mediterranean, Antarctica and California became more active."
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0628-earthquakes.html

Global warming has never been an environmental issue, it's a political one.
Bafflingly enough, it takes a political position to make such a grievously ignorant statement.
Wait - not very baffling, the more such attitude is peer-reviewed.

Please don't let this be about cows...
moo moo moo

Where is the option to not believe on global warming??? i said "i dont care" because it doesnt exist.

Why do people not care about earth? and what do people want to live in denial about it too?

Where is the option to not believe on global warming??? i said "i dont care" because it doesnt exist.

Hey now. Pretty much everyone is united in the belief that the planet is warming. The only dispute is if and to what extent humans are causing it. Or is that what you meant?

moo moo moo
Cows are so self-centered.

Please don't let this be about cows...

Agreed. That would be threadjacking. We should limit it to the topic at hand.

Cow Farts.

Cows are so self-centered.

No, that would be Jellyfish. Which aren't as tasty as the name implies.

Where is the option to not believe on global warming??? i said "i dont care" because it doesnt exist.

I would respond to this post, but I have not seen sufficient evidence that it exists.

It's impossible to run out of energy supplies when we have alternative energy; solar power alone gives us 1 trillion BOE equivalent (that's 30 years of petroleum) every three hours so I think we're alright on that front.

And with all the "guest workers" we're going to have soon, we can just get Mexicans to turn the turbines manually.

The hyperbole about global temperature is just another chance for the enviro-wackos to get recognized. The problem is that they have a few quacks with thermometers helping them out this time. Global warming has never been an environmental issue, it's a political one.

Do you have any evidence for that. Because even the best piece of evidence that Republican senators are able to present is a science fiction novel by the guy who wrote Jurassic Park.

Do you have any evidence for that. Because even the best piece of evidence that Republican senators are able to present is a science fiction novel by the guy who wrote Jurassic Park.
But he has footnotes! My God, how can you possibly try to stand up to a man with footnotes?

Agreed. That would be threadjacking. We should limit it to the topic at hand.

Cow Farts.
If we didn't tip them over so much, cows wouldn't try to kill us with their gas.

I would respond to this post, but I have not seen sufficient evidence that it exists.
:D
RAmen to that.
Ya may be "New" Domici, but ya still gots the same old moxie.

Where is the option to not believe on global warming??? i said "i dont care" because it doesnt exist.

So, what is it like living on a flat Earth where heavier objects fall faster and the moon is made of cheese? Are the magic pixies who make your computer work behaving themselves?

So, what is it like living on a flat Earth where heavier objects fall faster and the moon is made of cheese? Are the magic pixies who make your computer work behaving themselves?

Conservative land? Probably about the same as living in a world where you finally get the truth about Iraq (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10715424&highlight=truth+iraq#post10715424)from a guy who writes comic books.

I would respond to this post, but I have not seen sufficient evidence that it exists.This has to be the best reply I've ever seen in any of these threads :p

This has to be the best reply I've ever seen in any of these threads :p

Too bad that there's no proof that that reply exists.

Too bad that there's no proof that that reply exists.
Ka-POW! :sniper:

Ka-POW! :sniper:
Hey now! No shooting nonexistant bullets at nonexistant posts. You might offend some nonexistant poster with your nonexistant insolence.

Hey now! No shooting nonexistant bullets at nonexistant posts. You might offend some nonexistant poster with your nonexistant insolence.
:eek:
*disappears in a puff of logic*

I live in Wisconsin, I want global warming to happen. :cool:

I live in Wisconsin, I want global warming to happen. :cool:
Move up here to Alaska.
You can quite easily look around. You can smell it and feel it.
And - oh yeah - you can see it and experience it first hand.

Move up here to Alaska.
You can quite easily look around. You can smell it and feel it.
And - oh yeah - you can see it and experience it first hand.
I want global warming to happen. Can I move to Alaska and be with you as well?

I want global warming to happen. Can I move to Alaska and be with you as well?
Two things ...
one: you are of course aware that it's starting from being COLD here, right?
and
two: make sure you can bring that knife of FD's ... or at least, one of Ruffy's. Gotta keep the mood :)

Two things ...
one: you are of course aware that it's starting from being COLD here, right?
and
two: make sure you can bring that knife of FD's ... or at least, one of Ruffy's. Gotta keep the mood :)
What do you want me to do with Ruffys knife? :eek:

What do you want me to do with Ruffys knife? :eek:
Trust me - it's better for both of us that he doesn't have it without your permission.
*nods emphatically*
*refers to older post*

Turns out that extra CO2 is bad for crops outside of a contained laboratory.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0006B51F-9073-14A5-907383414B7F0000

Oh, and warming temps could cause rainforestst to expel CO2.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00016241-7DC0-1EA4-BDC0809EC588EEDF

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/07/05/acidocean_pla.html?category=animals&guid=20060705170030

Also, an absolutely GREAT piece from Sci Am that directly addresses many of the specific questions skeptics pose. DO NOT overlook or skip this.

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_part_iv&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

in reality global warming isnt real. In fact it is just a elaborate lie by liberals and others to scare Americans from living like we are used to. And if that happens we will stop being a superpower which is the goal of our enemies and these people that actually believe this global warming myth.

in reality global warming isnt real. In fact it is just a elaborate lie by liberals and others to scare Americans from living like we are used to. And if that happens we will stop being a superpower which is the goal of our enemies and these people that actually believe this global warming myth.

Do you mean global warming isn't real or man-made CO2 emissions causing global warming aren't real? Big difference.

I'm afraid the alarmists have won me over on this one. The skeptics had good points for a while, but the evidence pointed out by the Seattle Times journalist has yet to be responded to by skeptics.

Do you mean global warming isn't real or man-made CO2 emissions causing global warming aren't real? Big difference.

I'm afraid the alarmists have won me over on this one. The skeptics had good points for a while, but the evidence pointed out by the Seattle Times journalist has yet to be responded to by skeptics.
No Im saying global warming as a whole is a silly myth. The Earth is up a whole 1 degree over the past 100 years. OMG we are all going to die, please:rolleyes:

Eat more steak. Cows are bad for the planet and tasty to consume.


Appearntly cows evolved from doulphins.:confused:

No Im saying global warming as a whole is a silly myth. The Earth is up a whole 1 degree over the past 100 years. OMG we are all going to die, please:rolleyes:

It's not so much the change in ambient temperature that concerns the alarmists. It's that even a slight change in temperature can mess with the jet stream, causing more hurricanes and freak storms. (Some already attribute our increased frequency of hurricanes in the past couple of years and current heavy rainfall to global warming)

I believe I posted links to those Seattle Times articles earlier in the thread. If you know of any studies refuting those points, I'm all ears. I have yet to find the skeptics' response.

in reality global warming isnt real. In fact it is just a elaborate lie by liberals and others to scare Americans from living like we are used to. And if that happens we will stop being a superpower which is the goal of our enemies and these people that actually believe this global warming myth.
As a liberal, I have only this to say, "I HATE LIVING IN A WORLD OF THINGS BEING CONVENIENT!" Thank you.

It's not so much the change in ambient temperature that concerns the alarmists. It's that even a slight change in temperature can mess with the jet stream, causing more hurricanes and freak storms. (Some already attribute our increased frequency of hurricanes in the past couple of years and current heavy rainfall to global warming)

So don't build cities below sea level. I don't know why people didn't learn that lesson 60 years ago.

It's not so much the change in ambient temperature that concerns the alarmists. It's that even a slight change in temperature can mess with the jet stream, causing more hurricanes and freak storms. (Some already attribute our increased frequency of hurricanes in the past couple of years and current heavy rainfall to global warming)

I believe I posted links to those Seattle Times articles earlier in the thread. If you know of any studies refuting those points, I'm all ears. I have yet to find the skeptics' response.
I don't trust the Seattle times, its a bit of a propaganda machine. Last time I checked with fox news though, it has yet to be proven global warming exsistence. I once read a story that said that trees when they die let off more CO2 than humans ever could. So it seems to me trees are the real problem. But these whiny liberals that say we should stop global warming are the same people who say dont cut down trees or the rainforest, go figure right.

As a liberal, I have only this to say, "I HATE LIVING IN A WORLD OF THINGS BEING CONVENIENT!" Thank you.
all have to say is you kinda proved my point. Thank you.

I don't trust the Seattle times, its a bit of a propaganda machine. Last time I checked with fox news though, it has yet to be proven global warming exsistence. I once read a story that said that trees when they die let off more CO2 than humans ever could. So it seems to me trees are the real problem. But these whiny liberals that say we should stop global warming are the same people who say dont cut down trees or the rainforest, go figure right.
Hee-hee...

all have to say is you kinda proved my point. Thank you.
Oh, I know. Now, I'm off to bomb a 7-11.

all have to say is you kinda proved my point. Thank you.
Hey - did you see my thread about Cheney being related to Bush?
One might think that's right up your ... er, alley.
Most hated?
Some people ... *shakes head*