NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure this is all about PR, but who cares?

NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”

Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.

CEI acknowledged the change. “I would make an argument that we’re a useful ally, but it’s up to them whether that’s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,” director Fred Smith said on CNBC’s “On the Money.”

Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.

Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday were introducing a bill to curb emissions.

President Bush has opposed mandatory emissions cuts such as those required by the international Kyoto Protocol. He withdrew the United States, the world’s top carbon emitter, from the Kyoto pact early in his first term.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the new Senate majority leader, has said he wants new legislation this spring to regulate heat-trapping emissions. Other legislators also are planning hearings on emissions.

Scenarios studied
The industry talks center on the range of greenhouse gas policy options such as cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes, said Roy Kopp, head of the climate program at RFF. There also will be debates on whether rules should focus on companies producing oil, gas and coal, which release CO2 when burned, or consumers who use the fuels.

To spur open industry discussion, RFF said the talks, which began in December, exclude nongovernmental organizations.

Some see Exxon’s participation in the talks, coupled with its pledge to stop funding CEI, as early signs of a possible policy change.

“The fact that Exxon is trying to debate solutions, instead of whether climate change even exists, represents an important shift,” said Andrew Logan, a climate expert at Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmentalists that works with companies to cut climate change risks.

Exxon’s funding action was confirmed this week by its vice president for public affairs. Kenneth Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that Exxon decided in late 2005 that its 2006 nonprofit funding would not include CEI and "five or six" similar groups.

Cohen declined to identify the other groups, but their names could become public this spring when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups.

Scoring oil
In a report last year on how oil majors are addressing global warming emissions, Ceres gave Exxon a 35 — the worst of any company. Oil majors BP and Royal Dutch Shell got 90 and 79, respectively.

“Given how large and influential Exxon is and that they are basically the last big industry climate skeptic standing, even small moves can have a very big impact,” said Logan.

But he said it was too early to tell the substance of the change. “The devil is in the details,” he said.

Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that while questions remain about the degree to which fossil fuels are contributing to warming, the computer modelling on what the future may hold “has gotten better.”

And, he said, “we know enough now — or, society knows enough now — that the risk is serious and action should be taken.”

Peter Fusaro, a carbon markets expert, noted that Exxon already must comply with Kyoto regulations in other countries, and said the company may want to simplify compliance standards throughout its international operations.

“Multinational companies are under the gun to comply with Kyoto,” he said. “It’s starting to crystallize that companies can’t have dual environmental standards.”

Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future, told the Wall Street Journal that he was impressed by Exxon. “They are taking this debate very seriously,” said Sharp, a former Democratic congressman. “My personal opinion of them has changed by watching them operate.”

Victoly! A winner is Earth.

In all seriousness, though, I doubt this will actually change much. Certainly it won't change the adminstration's point of view, and if it doesn't change the administration's, then it really doesn't matter at this point.

Victoly! A winner is Earth.

In all seriousness, though, I doubt this will actually change much. Certainly it won't change the adminstration's point of view, and if it doesn't change the administration's, then it really doesn't matter at this point.

Why? If the companies are willing to take voluntary action it doesn't matter what the administration says.

Why? If the companies are willing to take voluntary action it doesn't matter what the administration says.

Doesn't the administration have control over certain factors that ultimately make the decision of the companies pointless? Or am I giving Bush more control than he actually has?

Why? If the companies are willing to take voluntary action it doesn't matter what the administration says.
Voluntary action doesn't mean anything in comparison to laws and regulations.
The industry has proven time and again that they only care for $$$.

Doesn't the administration have control over certain factors that ultimately make the decision of the companies pointless? Or am I giving Bush more control than he actually has?

The administration dropped the Kyoto protocol, but the article says Exxon will adhere to it anyway. If that's the case, who cares what Bush thinks? For that matter, does he think? Who thinks about Bush? I think about Bush all day. There's this one chick at my work and everytime she's in the room all I think about is Bush.

Voluntary action doesn't mean anything in comparison to laws and regulations.
The industry has proven time and again that they only care for $$$.

See above.

Victoly! A winner is Earth.

In all seriousness, though, I doubt this will actually change much. Certainly it won't change the adminstration's point of view, and if it doesn't change the administration's, then it really doesn't matter at this point.

I don't know how americans feel about climate change but here it has moved to top priority among voters. Our skeptic government is feeling the heat from the public over their inaction preferring the economy over the planets health. In the next election they will either deliver an adequate response to climate change or they'll likely be swept from office.

I don't know how americans feel about climate change but here it has moved to top priority among voters. Our skeptic government is feeling the heat from the public over their inaction preferring the economy over the planets health. In the next election they will either deliver an adequate response to climate change or they'll likely be swept from office.

Polls have consistently showed that most Americans believe something needs to be done about it, but right now it's not a top priority because a moron got us stuck in a really bad place and I think that that's more immediate in people's minds. The body bags and the terrorism and all. Where you from, pilgrim?

The administration dropped the Kyoto protocol, but the article says Exxon will adhere to it anyway. If that's the case, who cares what Bush thinks? For that matter, does he think? Who thinks about Bush? I think about Bush all day. There's this one chick at my work and everytime she's in the room all I think about is Bush.
Well, I'll believe it when I see it. Corporate promises don't mean much as far as I'm concerned, especially when there's reason to believe that they're making the promises in order to forestall regulations.

Well, I'll believe it when I see it. Corporate promises don't mean much as far as I'm concerned, especially when there's reason to believe that they're making the promises in order to forestall regulations.

Sure except the other motive, a profit motive in itself, makes sense. The article poimts out that these companies are going to have to obey Kyoto in other countries anyway and it may be cheaper to adopt one pollution standard for the whole company than to keep seperate standards for the US. Of course, we'll see. In anycase, it's good to see that at least some of the bullshit propoganda will probably lose a major source. IIRC, Exxon was their sole major contributer so this is probably the CEI's death throw.

maybe they were just disappointed with the shoddy quality of cei's "they call it environmental catastrophe, we call it money money money" ad campaign

Sure except the other motive, a profit motive in itself, makes sense. The article poimts out that these companies are going to have to obey Kyoto in other countries anyway and it may be cheaper to adopt one pollution standard for the whole company than to keep seperate standards for the US. Of course, we'll see. In anycase, it's good to see that at least some of the bullshit propoganda will probably lose a major source. IIRC, Exxon was their sole major contributer so this is probably the CEI's death throw.
I'll give them that much--stopping the propaganda is a net plus. Maybe the backlash from that ridiculous set of ads was enough to convince them to at east stop the open bullshit.

I'm sure this is all about PR, but who cares?

So, if the opinion is in opposition, it's a good thing that it is silenced?

I think there going to put them money to a more credible scientist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS1t-EjF4h8&mode=related&search=

So, if the opinion is in opposition, it's a good thing that it is silenced?

when it's in opposition to reality, sure. lies should not be funded with millions of dollars and loudly and uncritically proclaimed from sources of apparent authority.

when it's in opposition to reality, sure. lies should not be funded with millions of dollars and loudly and uncritically proclaimed from sources of apparent authority.

QFT

It's not the opinion that's the problem. Everyone has a right to his or her opinion, but not to his or her own facts.

when it's in opposition to reality, sure.

There may be a reality that global warming is happening.

There is not a reality that it is Man-caused.

lies should not be funded with millions of dollars and loudly and uncritically proclaimed from sources of apparent authority.

Private money can be used to fund anything the owner of the money wishes to fund.

Just because what it funds is in opposition, does not make it lies.

There is no consensus that global warming is Man-induced or that Man's influence comes out of the noise of natural events.

I'll give them that much--stopping the propaganda is a net plus. Maybe the backlash from that ridiculous set of ads was enough to convince them to at east stop the open bullshit.

I did stop going to Exxons all together when the funding thing came out. Yeah, the other companies are not any better etc, etc, and I'm still buying gas (mostly because I haven't been able to afford the diesel engine to swap out in the Vanagon so I can go to biodiesel) it was a token gesture, the idea (tenious as it may be) that they where the ones getting the publicity for the funding so I 'punished' to make a point to others. Did what I did have an effect? No, I don't think so, I don't even know if anyone else reacted the same way, but that reaction over all might be a factor in what they did.

So, if the opinion is in opposition, it's a good thing that it is silenced?

Yes. :) This isn't censorship. The government has nothing to do with it.

Private money can be used to fund anything the owner of the money wishes to fund.

can ≠ should.

There is no consensus that global warming is Man-induced or that Man's influence comes out of the noise of natural events.

yes, there is. has been for over a decade.

There may be a reality that global warming is happening.

There is not a reality that it is Man-caused.



Private money can be used to fund anything the owner of the money wishes to fund.

Just because what it funds is in opposition, does not make it lies.

There is no consensus that global warming is Man-induced or that Man's influence comes out of the noise of natural events.

No, the CEI has spent millions making you believe there is no consensus when, in fact, there is.

I did stop going to Exxons all together when the funding thing came out. Yeah, the other companies are not any better etc, etc, and I'm still buying gas (mostly because I haven't been able to afford the diesel engine to swap out in the Vanagon so I can go to biodiesel) it was a token gesture, the idea (tenious as it may be) that they where the ones getting the publicity for the funding so I 'punished' to make a point to others. Did what I did have an effect? No, I don't think so, I don't even know if anyone else reacted the same way, but that reaction over all might be a factor in what they did.

I stopped buying from Exxon whenever possible long ago for different reasons. Chevron too. These days I tend to opt for smaller brands--Hess has been a recent favorite--but mainly because I don't know of anything they've done to piss me off. For all I know they're subsidiaries of Exxon or Chevron or one of the other bastards.

I stopped buying from Exxon whenever possible long ago for different reasons. Chevron too. These days I tend to opt for smaller brands--Hess has been a recent favorite--but mainly because I don't know of anything they've done to piss me off. For all I know they're subsidiaries of Exxon or Chevron or one of the other bastards.

see, I started to go to Chevron because of this:
http://www.willyoujoinus.com/

I stopped buying from Exxon whenever possible long ago for different reasons. Chevron too. These days I tend to opt for smaller brands--Hess has been a recent favorite--but mainly because I don't know of anything they've done to piss me off. For all I know they're subsidiaries of Exxon or Chevron or one of the other bastards.

It'd be so much easier for me (and also much more difficult...) if I could just afford that stupid diesel engine...too bad I can't start a charity "Get CToaN Off Gas" I could hold a telethon.

Or not.

yes, there is. has been for over a decade.

No, there isn't.

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6341044%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

There is no consensus.

No, there isn't.

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6341044%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

There is no consensus.

See, a consensus does not mean that there are no skeptics. It means that there is overwhelming agreement. The vast majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic warming. That doesn't mean that every single one does.

No, there isn't.

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6341044%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

There is no consensus.

By that logic, the existence of a Flat Earth society means there's no consensus that the earth is indeed spheroid.

No, there isn't.

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6341044%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

There is no consensus.

this is a great opening sentence to yoru wikipedia article, though.

This page lists scientists, not necessarily involved in climate research, who have expressed doubt regarding the scientific opinion on global warming. The consensus has been summarized by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:

By that logic, the existence of a Flat Earth society means there's no consensus that the earth is indeed spheroid.

all i'm saying is teach the controversy...

There may be a reality that global warming is happening.

There is not a reality that it is Man-caused.
Presumably your opinion will change when Bush's does.

There is no consensus that global warming is Man-induced or that Man's influence comes out of the noise of natural events.
Among scientists, there is.

No, there isn't.

http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6341044%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

There is no consensus.

I checked the first link. Many of the articles are written by a man with no climatology training, and most of the rest come from junkscience.com, a partisan website known for distorting facts.

Polls have consistently showed that most Americans believe something needs to be done about it, but right now it's not a top priority because a moron got us stuck in a really bad place and I think that that's more immediate in people's minds. The body bags and the terrorism and all. Where you from, pilgrim?

that's interesting, we have a similar situation here(Canada) with dead and wounded coming back from Afghanistan, which has us debating the value of the mission there with no no end in sight. Despite that it's the environment that clearly comes first that may change in the summer when the effects of climate change aren't as obvious.

Presumably your opinion will change when Bush's does.

I do not suck at the teat you bite.

My opinion far precedes Bush.

Among scientists, there is.

Not quite.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

what many skeptics don't understand is that they are misinterpreting the data of other studies. One example is the sun causes heating, skeptics then get all excited and claim it's proof they are correct. Of course the sun has an effect that's never been disputed, as do volcano's and trees and many other factors. What they don't seem to understand is that all the natural events when combined with man made pollution has pushed the planet's natural climate balance past a tipping point.

What they don't seem to understand is that all the natural events when combined with man made pollution has pushed the planet's natural climate balance past a tipping point.

I've seen no proof - PROOF - that Man's contribution has any effect over that of Nature.

I've seen no proof - PROOF - that Man's contribution has any effect over that of Nature.

Then you've not looked honestly. It's that simple.

I do not suck at the teat you bite.

My opinion far precedes Bush.



Not quite.

Yes there is.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

The climate system varies both through natural, "internal" processes as well as in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human and non-human causes, including solar activity, volcanic emissions, and greenhouse gases. Climatologists agree that the earth has warmed recently. The detailed causes of this change remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the recent warming. Outside of the scientific community, however, this conclusion can be controversial.

Most importantly:

In December 2004, Science published an article by UC San Diego geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes that summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[1] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I've seen no proof - PROOF - that Man's contribution has any effect over that of Nature.

Unfortunately, the only way to prove something in science is to make it happen. That's not a good idea in this case.

Quote:
In December 2004, Science published an article by UC San Diego geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes that summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[1] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

that reflects Al Gore's documentary that in a random sample of scientific studies (was it a sample of a 1,000?) that not one study contradicted that climate change was the result of human causes. and that skepticism existed in the media and public domain but not in the scientific community.

You guys are putting an awful lot of effort into an argument with a dishonest opponent. Arguing about human effect on the climate is like arguing about evolution--no one honest seriously doubts either one.

I can dig it.

I wonder if this has anything to do with Democrats coming into power. You know the Dems would put more pressure on companies to be more environmentally friendly. They probably don't want to look liek the bad guy being forced to be good... they want to be seen as the responsible ones making the decision to be good on their own.

Besides, the green economy is just starting to boom. It would be stupid if they didnt ride the wave.

You guys are putting an awful lot of effort into an argument with a dishonest opponent. Arguing about human effect on the climate is like arguing about evolution--no one honest seriously doubts either one.

I was thinking the same thing, why do we bother arguing with people who can't accept the obvious.

We should be discussing what to do about climate change and how to remove those in power who refuse to do anything.

You guys are putting an awful lot of effort into an argument with a dishonest opponent. Arguing about human effect on the climate is like arguing about evolution--no one honest seriously doubts either one.

I know, but I like to debate. It's fun. :)

did I say soemthing that was already covered or was my comment ignored because the sheer brilliance of the post blinds any who dare read it?

did I say soemthing that was already covered or was my comment ignored because the sheer brilliance of the post blinds any who dare read it?

well, the thing about the Dems is actually covered in the article. :)

well, the thing about the Dems is actually covered in the article. :)

Ah ok - one day I plan to start reading those article thingies.

Ah ok - one day I plan to start reading those article thingies.

They kill time. :)

That Exxon pulled their funding is not evidence that they've changed their position or that their science is bad. All it means is that Exxon no longer sees any benefit in funding the sceptics.

Perhaps because they realise they lost that fight. Regardless of how crappy the science might be, the vast majority of people blindly follow the global warming alarmists.

This is also why I now argue primarily for less harmful mitigation tactics rather than directly opposing the science.

You guys are putting an awful lot of effort into an argument with a dishonest opponent. Arguing about human effect on the climate is like arguing about evolution--no one honest seriously doubts either one.
Many people doubt the certainty global warming alarmists claim to have about the earth's climate. Many people question the motives of global warming alarmists. Many people wonder if an emissions-based solution is really the best way to go forward.

That Exxon pulled their funding is not evidence that they've changed their position or that their science is bad. All it means is that Exxon no longer sees any benefit in funding the sceptics.Not accoring to Exxon.

Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that while questions remain about the degree to which fossil fuels are contributing to warming, the computer modelling on what the future may hold “has gotten better.”

And, he said, “we know enough now — or, society knows enough now — that the risk is serious and action should be taken.”


Perhaps because they realise they lost that fight. Regardless of how crappy the science might be, the vast majority of people blindly follow the global warming alarmists.

This is also why I now argue primarily for less harmful mitigation tactics rather than directly opposing the science.

How would you know the science is bad? You never read the science. You read distortions of the science as it is reported by the kinds of groups Exxon has stopped funding.

You guys are putting an awful lot of effort into an argument with a dishonest opponent. Arguing about human effect on the climate is like arguing about evolution--no one honest seriously doubts either one.

Now that I think about it, the same types of arguments follow:

Evolution-I believe thtat microevolution exists, however not in macro evolution(Anyone who understands evolution understand that there is no actual difference), and that although the processes allow it, I don't think it happens.

Global Warming-I believe it is happening, but I don't think that humans affect it, although the processes involved have been proven to have an effect.

Seems oddly strange...

Not accoring to Exxon.
Yes, and you trust Exxon to be perfectly honest all of the time.
How would you know the science is bad? You never read the science. You read distortions of the science as it is reported by the kinds of groups Exxon has stopped funding.
I never said the science was bad. I said that the quality of the science was irrelevant to the question at hand, which is how many people believe the science.

There's this one chick at my work and everytime she's in the room all I think about is Bush.

The president?

Yes, and you trust Exxon to be perfectly honest all of the time.

I never said the science was bad. I said that the quality of the science was irrelevant to the question at hand, which is how many people believe the science.

This may be the slipperiest post I've seen in a long ass time.

This may be the slipperiest post I've seen in a long ass time.
Thank you.

I've seen no proof - PROOF - that Man's contribution has any effect over that of Nature.
You're a liar, and the exposition of such has clearly shut you up real quick.

Given your political views, you seem to support a lot of things without proof, so why can't you be equally cautious about this matter?

Many people doubt the certainty global warming alarmists claim to have about the earth's climate. Many people question the motives of global warming alarmists.
Those people are either dishonest or stupid, because they're dismissing solid science because they don't like a handful of messengers.

Many people wonder if an emissions-based solution is really the best way to go forward.
That's an argument we can legitimately have, because questions over the solution abound, and there's certainly room for debate over which solutions will be the most effective in the short and long terms.

Here is what the experts have to say....not some crap about...well *I* think its because....sorry dude, that doesnt cut it in the real world.

QUESTION: If climate changes naturally over time, why isn't the current warming just another natural cycle?

ANSWER:Earth’s climate does change naturally, but the current warming is not natural. Known natural causes of warming, such as the sun, have been constant in the past 30 years, so they cannot explain the warming of the past 30 years. The pattern of the current warming is also highly unnatural. For example, it is warming more at night than during the day; this is expected for CO2-caused heat trapping, because CO2 works at night, whereas natural warming would be more in the day. A long list of similar patterns (a "fingerprint" of human-caused warming) proves conclusively that the warming isn't natural.

QUESTION: Scientists can't predict the weather next week. Why do they think they can predict the climate in 50 years?

ANSWER: If you flip a coin, you can't predict whether it will land as heads or tails, but you can be absolutely confident that you have a 50% chance of heads and a 50% chance of tails. Predicting climate is predicting the probability of events, not the actual occurrence of events. Global warming is a forced problem. Imagine a loaded dice, and that every week you put more loading weight in it. The loading factor here is CO2. More and more of it every year, known for 100 years to warm the planet.

QUESTION: Climate scientists can't predict when we will pass an irreversible threshold into catastrophe—whether it’s 10 years from now or 100 years from now—so why believe them at all?

ANSWER: It has been known since 1869 that CO2 traps heat. This is settled physics. It has been shown beyond a shadow of doubt that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% in the last 150 years. Basic physics plus remedial math—the rest is details. It is true that climate scientists can't predict when irreversible thresholds will be crossed, because we don’t yet fully understand the behavior of Earth’s complex climate system. But that does not mean that the basic understanding that CO2 causes warming is flawed.

To use a medical analogy, just because your doctor can't tell you the precise date and time that you will have a heart attack doesn't mean you should ignore his advice and keep on eating fatty, high-calorie food. Medical science is imperfect, just like climate science.

QUESTION: Scientists disagree. We don't know the science well enough yet, so why should we do anything?

ANSWER: Actually, there is strong scientific consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change. See the consensus/position statements of:

- National Academy of Sciences
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- American Meteorological Society (AMS)
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Oreskes (Science, 2004) analyzed all abstracts in refereed scientific publications from 1993*–2003 with the keywords "global climate change" (928 papers). None disagreed with the consensus position that human activities are causing the current warming.

QUESTION: Since it's snowing more on land-based ice sheets due to the warming, wouldn't this make sea level fall rather than rise?

ANSWER: It is indeed snowing more than it used to in the interiors of Antarctica and Greenland, because warmer air holds more moisture, but the mass gain in the interiors is more than offset by the mass loss around the margins due to glaciers sliding faster into the ocean in response to warming. So the net change is one of mass loss from the ice sheets, which is causing sea level to rise. This is responsible for about half of the observed 3 mm rise per year. The mass loss of Antarctica has been recently verified by the GRACE gravity satellite, which showed that gravity over Antarctica is weakening due to the loss of mass.

There are some more here http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate_change3.cfm

And yet, still no mention of cloud albedo.