Al Gore's Legislative Recommendations to Congress

[Icycle]

On March 21st, Al Gore testified before both houses of Congress on the subject of global climate change. Among the highlights of his testimony was were ten legislative recommendations for Congress to deal with this problem.


An immediate "carbon freeze" that would cap U.S. CO2 emissions at current levels, followed by a program to generate 90% reductions by 2050.
Start a long-term tax shift to reduce payroll taxes and increase taxes on CO2 emissions.
Put aside a portion of carbon tax revenues to help low-income people make the transition.
Create a strong international treaty by working toward "de facto compliance with Kyoto" and moving up the start date for Kyoto's successor from 2012 to 2010.
Implement a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants that are not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.
Create an "ELECTRANET" -- a smart electricity grid that allows individuals and businesses to feed power back in at prevailing market rates.
Raise CAFE standards.
Set a date for a ban on incandescent light bulbs.
Create "Connie Mae," a carbon-neutral mortgage association, to help defray the upfront costs of energy-efficient building.
Have the SEC require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting, as a relevant "material risk."

I find it surprising and refreshing that such a mainstream politician would propose such a radical program. I realize that actually implementing all of Gore's suggestions in our current political climate is probably impossible, but hopefully but put it out there in front of Congress and the American people, they will be forced to take some positive action.

[Mastertank1]

Democrats and Republicans, will mostly refuse to take any meaningful action to stave off global warming until the rising sea level prevents them from reaching their offices in the House and Senate office buildings near the capitol building.

What I love is how a bunch of Republican Senators and Representatives have gone directly from "There is no problem, and if there were it would not be human-caused" to "There is a problem, and it is human caused, but it's now too late to do anything about it".

Wonderful. ANY excuse to take no action and let their industry paymasters go on with business as usual.

[maniactickler]

Those are all ridiculous recommendations. Gore is insane.

[tickledgirl]

Those are all ridiculous recommendations. Gore is insane.

Gotta love that substantive debate. Let me see if I can rebut your commentary. How about: "Oh yeah? Gore's rubber and you're glue." :p

[Dussicar]

On March 21st, Al Gore testified before both houses of Congress on the subject of global climate change. Among the highlights of his testimony was were ten legislative recommendations for Congress to deal with this problem.


An immediate "carbon freeze" that would cap U.S. CO2 emissions at current levels, followed by a program to generate 90% reductions by 2050.
Start a long-term tax shift to reduce payroll taxes and increase taxes on CO2 emissions.
Put aside a portion of carbon tax revenues to help low-income people make the transition.
Create a strong international treaty by working toward "de facto compliance with Kyoto" and moving up the start date for Kyoto's successor from 2012 to 2010.
Implement a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants that are not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.
Create an "ELECTRANET" -- a smart electricity grid that allows individuals and businesses to feed power back in at prevailing market rates.
Raise CAFE standards.
Set a date for a ban on incandescent light bulbs.
Create "Connie Mae," a carbon-neutral mortgage association, to help defray the upfront costs of energy-efficient building.
Have the SEC require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting, as a relevant "material risk."

I find it surprising and refreshing that such a mainstream politician would propose such a radical program. I realize that actually implementing all of Gore's suggestions in our current political climate is probably impossible, but hopefully but put it out there in front of Congress and the American people, they will be forced to take some positive action.


It does sound great. Unfortunately, as a pessimist, I figure that these proposals will be delegated to the "in one ear, out the other" committee.

I find it nice that there is at least ONE member of your government that is taking our future as a planet seriously.

Unfortunately, again, with Stephen Harper at our country's helm, we're pretty much fucked until there are enough Canadians who become intelligent enough(fat chance) to realise that as long as the conservatives are in power we will not even SEE a glimpse of such proposals up here.

[Icycle]

It does sound great. Unfortunately, as a pessimist, I figure that these proposals will be delegated to the "in one ear, out the other" committee.

I find it nice that there is at least ONE member of your government that is taking our future as a planet seriously.

Unfortunately, again, with Stephen Harper at our country's helm, we're pretty much fucked until there are enough Canadians who become intelligent enough(fat chance) to realise that as long as the conservatives are in power we will not even SEE a glimpse of such proposals up here.

Sadly, Al Gore is not a member of our government any more. He is just a private citizen who happens to be very passionate about climate change and who happens to still be infuential in Washington.

I think all of his ideas are good ones, and they closely reflect what scientists and economists recommend. However, I doubt there is sufficient consensus in Washington to get any of the items on the list done. There are a few Senators and Representatives who talk a good talk, but most of the Republicans are strongly opposed to any action to combat climate change, and even some influential Democrats are opposed to action. For example Representative John Dingle (D-MI) is the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and since Dingell represents Detroit, the center of the American auto industry, his is opposed to any efforts to increase gas milage in automobiles, and his in a position to block any such legislation with his chairmanship.

Not to mention that the Bush Administration is also strongly opposed to action to prevent climate change, and the Bush administration would very likely to use vetos, signing statements, executive orders, or simple bureaucratic rulemaking to waterdown or block any attempts to implement such changes.

In the last year or two, the American public has started to see climate change as a major problem. According to recent survey data, it is nearly as important a problem as terrorism in the minds of Americans. It seems likely that climate change will be a major issue in the 2008 election, both for the President and for Congress, and it seems likely that we will end up with both a President and Congress that are much more amenable to taking action. I just hope that it isn't too late by then.

[maniactickler]

Gotta love that substantive debate. Let me see if I can rebut your commentary. How about: "Oh yeah? Gore's rubber and you're glue." :p


Why am i always the glue? well after careful consideration, i do go for one of his recommendations. the one about getting rid of incandescent bulbs.

[nowayjose]

I strongly suspect the electrical industry behind law initiatives such as "banning" conventional light bulbs. This is pure lobbyism, they simply make a lot more money from flourescent bulbs. I use flourescent bulbs myself where they make sense but they're not for all applications and banning incandescent bulbs is just so.. nonsensical.. pure actionism.

Amazingly the country that came forward first with that nonsense proposal is Australia -- I recently saw a short documentary on energy consumption in Australia and they are WASTING like noone else because energy is so cheap there. Whole office towers fully illuminated all the night, offices and all, even though not a single person is working inside. Instead of banning lightbulbs, it would make a lot more sense to simply switch the lights off when noone's there.

[Icycle]

I strongly suspect the electrical industry behind law initiatives such as "banning" conventional light bulbs. This is pure lobbyism, they simply make a lot more money from flourescent bulbs. I use flourescent bulbs myself where they make sense but they're not for all applications and banning incandescent bulbs is just so.. nonsensical.. pure actionism.

Huh? Compact fluorescent bulbs use about 15%-25% of the electricity of conventional incandescent bulbs for an equivalent amount of illumination. How do you figure that the electrical industry make a lot more money from CF bulbs, if customers are using 75% electricity for lighting? The major advantage to the electrical industry is that they can potentially delay the construction of additional power plants if consumers switch to CF bulbs, since some of the normal increase in demand for electricity would be offset by a reduction in electricity usage for lighting.

I suspect that most of the drive behind compact fluorescent lighting comes from environmentalists and others trying to reduce electricity consumption, rather than large industries like electricity generating companies.

The reason it is necessary to ban incandescent bulbs is that the average consumer given a choice between an incandecent bulb and a CF bulb will probably purchase the incandescent bulb because it appears to be cheaper. In reality, a CF bulb pays for itself many times over in lower electricity bills and much longer lifetimes, but those factors probably don't enter most consumers minds when buying a replacement light bulb in the houseware aisle of WalMart. If we want to mitigate the effects of climate change and achieve energy independence, we need to make massive efficiency and conservation measures across the country, and CF lighting is an example of one such change that is a no brainer: direct cost savings to consumers for a substantially identical product, which simultaneous leads to large reductions in energy consumption.

[TickleWolf]

Why didn't Mr Gore make these recommendations when he was Vice President of the vice President? He had 8 years. Why didn't he make these recommendations to Congress when he was in Congress? Gore says sea levels will rise 23 feet, the HOLY, HOLY, HOLY UN says a foot , SLIGHTLY more or even less in the next century. What can you expect from somebody who told the world that he believed Clinton was telling the truth ? He's just found a new gravy train. Period.

[killemall]

Those are all ridiculous recommendations. Gore is insane.


i agree. he is jimmy carter the second, all he is looking for is some kind of nobel peace prize.

[bugman]

Sounds like a good plan,if you want to ruin the U.S. economy.

[Icycle]

Why didn't Mr Gore make these recommendations when he was Vice President of the vice President? He had 8 years. Why didn't he make these recommendations to Congress when he was in Congress?

Mr. Gore has been a the forefront on the global climate change issue for decades. He held the first congression hearings on reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in the late 1970s, and held hearings on global warming in the 1980s. In 1992, he published "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit". In the late 1990s, he pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Accord. Mr. Gore is not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue.

Gore says sea levels will rise 23 feet, the HOLY, HOLY, HOLY UN says a foot , SLIGHTLY more or even less in the next century.
I have to admit that I don't know that much about the scientific data on sea level rise. I suspect that the reality lies somewhere in the middle. In particular the UN Intergovernmental Panel on a Climate Change is a highly conservative, political, consensus driven organization. Every single word in the documents they publish has been fought over by scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats from governments around the world. The projections of the UN IPCC tend to on the low end of scientific consensus. So when the IPCC issues statements like "Warming of thee climate system is unequivocal" and "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations", you know that this is a very serious issue.

[Icycle]

Sounds like a good plan,if you want to ruin the U.S. economy.

According to the Stern Reivew on the Economics of Climate Change, commissioned by the British government in 2006, it would require an investment of approximately 1% of global GDP per year to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that a failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to 20% lower than it otherwise would have been.

Doing nothing and continue business as usual will ruin the US economy. Taking prudent measures will have a small economic cost, but will preserve the Earth and its climate for future generations.

In addition, the costs to mitigate climate change are not stictly losses. Investing in renewable resources like wind and solar power could lower electricity costs, and if pursued agressively enough could make America a technology leader in this area. Similarly in automotive technology, America is far behind the rest of the world. Japanese and European car makers have been making innovative highly efficient cars for years. America's cars are so fuel inefficient, we can't even meet China's fuel economy standards! If we don't act soon, there may not be any foreign markets for US cars.

[bugman]

According to the Stern Reivew on the Economics of Climate Change, commissioned by the British government in 2006, it would require an investment of approximately 1% of global GDP per year to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that a failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to 20% lower than it otherwise would have been.

Doing nothing and continue business as usual will ruin the US economy. Taking prudent measures will have a small economic cost, but will preserve the Earth and its climate for future generations.

In addition, the costs to mitigate climate change are not stictly losses. Investing in renewable resources like wind and solar power could lower electricity costs, and if pursued agressively enough could make America a technology leader in this area. Similarly in automotive technology, America is far behind the rest of the world. Japanese and European car makers have been making innovative highly efficient cars for years. America's cars are so fuel inefficient, we can't even meet China's fuel economy standards! If we don't act soon, there may not be any foreign markets for US cars.

I'm not opposed to conserving energy,or finding alternate methods.I think we must indeed do so.Can you link to that report?I would like to read it.

[TickleWolf]

Mr. Gore has been a the forefront on the global climate change issue for decades. He held the first congression hearings on reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in the late 1970s, and held hearings on global warming in the 1980s. In 1992, he published "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit". In the late 1990s, he pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Accord. Mr. Gore is not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue.


I have to admit that I don't know that much about the scientific data on sea level rise. I suspect that the reality lies somewhere in the middle. In particular the UN Intergovernmental Panel on a Climate Change is a highly conservative, political, consensus driven organization. Every single word in the documents they publish has been fought over by scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats from governments around the world. The projections of the UN IPCC tend to on the low end of scientific consensus. So when the IPCC issues statements like "Warming of thee climate system is unequivocal" and "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations", you know that this is a very serious issue.


The Kyoto accord, as with a long list of Clinton administration "treatys", was just so much window dressing. It would have hamstrung the US economy while allowing the worst kind of polluters like China and India get off scott free . That's so we could "be fair" and let their economies catch up while ruining ours. That's why it couldn't fly here. If it was a real attempt to adress the issus of POLLUTION, global warming is just a chimera, then most people, if not the majority of Americans would have supported it. I don't want to breathe foul air anymore than the next person. The fact is that we have made HUGE strides in cleaning up our act over the last 35+ years . The fact is that there is no proof that there is such a thing as global warming. Or that any trends that might lead people to think that there is , aren't just natural. The climate has apparently changed countless times, and quite drastically, before humans ever even existed.

As far as Gore being involved in global climate change issues since the 70's , I think it would be interesting to see whether he was shrieking about global warming or the approach of the Next ICE AGE, which is what idiots like Gore were hysterical about back in the 1970's. I was around then, I was a kid, but I remember. They were all chicken littles once , that's why people don't believe them now. That and they have zero real facts. Just a lot of jumped up emotionalism, and slogans. If global warming is real, I sincerely hope that it it is handled with more seriousness than phoney liberal "documentaries" and ginned up numbers. The world deserves much, much better.

[drew70]

Wow, so not only will Al Gore save the planet, but will rescue the economy as well! Tell me, does he make Julienne Fries as well? :blaugh:

[TickleWolf]

Wow, so not only will Al Gore save the planet, but will rescue the economy as well! Tell me, does he make Julienne Fries as well? :blaugh:


Lets not forget, we have him to thank for this forum. If not for him, we'd be having this discussion by morse code.

[TickleWolf]

As another side note vis a vis Mr Gore's credibility. He once told an audience that his mother used to lull him to sleep with the song "Look For the Union Label" . Which is really amazing because it wasn't written until he was an adult. Fact, fiction. Do they have any boundaries in the mind of Mr Gore? There's a signpost up ahead, you're about to enter the Albert Zone.

[Icycle]

I'm not opposed to conserving energy,or finding alternate methods.I think we must indeed do so.Can you link to that report?I would like to read it.

Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the Stern Review here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

If you'd like to see the original document yourself, all 700 pages of it are available online in PDF format:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

You can also order hard copies for about $50.

[drew70]

He's a piece of work all right. What's amazing is the volume of people stupid enough to buy into his claptrap. "If a politician says it, it must be true!" :blaugh:

I remember in another Global Warming thread, when somebody mentioned several accredited scientists who didn't buy into "science" of the so-called "climate crisis," one of the left-wingers went out of his way to play the Six Degrees of Seperation game, "linking" each and every opposing scientist to "Big Oil" which of course totally disqualifies any and all scientific qualifications. :rolleyes: It was comical to begin with, but what made it even more so, was how SERIOUS the guy was about it, and how proud he was of his "research." :jester:

[Redmage]

Sounds like a good plan,if you want to ruin the U.S. economy.The interesting thing is that it looks as though global warming will cost the US economy a great deal more than it would cost us to slow or stop it.

[Redmage]

The Kyoto accord, as with a long list of Clinton administration "treatys", was just so much window dressing. It would have hamstrung the US economy while allowing the worst kind of polluters like China and India get off scott freeAre you suggesting that China and India put out more carbon dioxide than the United States? Just curious.

The fact is that we have made HUGE strides in cleaning up our act over the last 35+ yearsThat is true, if you're talking only about "conventional" pollutants such as Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and particulates. It's not true at all if you're talking about CO2. In fact under Bush the EPA has tried to avoid having to treat CO2 as a pollutant. It wasn't until just this week that a Supreme Court decision forced them to stop that.

So while we've made great strides in some areas, as far as global warming is concerned we've only gotten worse.

The fact is that there is no proof that there is such a thing as global warming. Or that any trends that might lead people to think that there is , aren't just natural.Of course there is. How many scientific studies would you like links to?

The climate has apparently changed countless times, and quite drastically, before humans ever even existed. True, but basically irrelevant, because it hasn't changed this rapidly, and because the causes of those changes are fairly well understood, and this one can't be explained by those mechanisms.

As far as Gore being involved in global climate change issues since the 70's , I think it would be interesting to see whether he was shrieking about global warming or the approach of the Next ICE AGE, which is what idiots like Gore were hysterical about back in the 1970's. I was around then, I was a kid, but I remember.What do you recall, as to how many scientists supported that theory, and how long it lasted?

[Redmage]

As another side note vis a vis Mr Gore's credibility. He once told an audience that his mother used to lull him to sleep with the song "Look For the Union Label" . Which is really amazing because it wasn't written until he was an adult. Fact, fiction. Do they have any boundaries in the mind of Mr Gore? There's a signpost up ahead, you're about to enter the Albert Zone.You need to do more fact checking and less blind acceptance of RNC talking points. Even a site that criticizes Gore says there's nothing to this one. Quoting the site (http://tafkac.org/ulz/gore2.html).

FICTION: Al Gore remembers his mother lulling him to sleep as a baby by singing the popular ditty, "Wear The Union Label".

FACT: The popular ditty was created by the unions when Gore was 27 years old.

Gore said in an address to the Service Employees International Union on May 23, 1999 (NOTE: Gore made the same joke to the Teamsters in Sept 2000):

'And as a matter of fact my dad was in Congress when I was born, and I don't know if any of you know Evie Dubrow [Dubrow, a former vice president of UNITE, previously ILGWU--the textile employees union--was a friend of Gore's father]; she was one of my babysitters [laughter] when I was growing up, if you can imagine. I can still remember those lullabies: "Look for the union label."'

Transcript (http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~action/goreseiu.html)

It is clear from context that Gore was making a joke.

There's additional information to back this up, including an interview with Mrs. Dubrow published six weeks before Gore's Teamsters address in which she said "Al jokes that when he was a little boy, I used to sing him the ‘Union Label’ song."

Sometimes Al Gore's critics take the time to get their facts straight. Unfortunately sometimes they don't.

[TickleWolf]

You need to do more fact checking and less blind acceptance of RNC talking points. Even a site that criticizes Gore says there's nothing to this one. Quoting the site (http://tafkac.org/ulz/gore2.html).

FICTION: Al Gore remembers his mother lulling him to sleep as a baby by singing the popular ditty, "Wear The Union Label".

FACT: The popular ditty was created by the unions when Gore was 27 years old.

Gore said in an address to the Service Employees International Union on May 23, 1999 (NOTE: Gore made the same joke to the Teamsters in Sept 2000):

'And as a matter of fact my dad was in Congress when I was born, and I don't know if any of you know Evie Dubrow [Dubrow, a former vice president of UNITE, previously ILGWU--the textile employees union--was a friend of Gore's father]; she was one of my babysitters [laughter] when I was growing up, if you can imagine. I can still remember those lullabies: "Look for the union label."'

Transcript (http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~action/goreseiu.html)

It is clear from context that Gore was making a joke.

There's additional information to back this up, including an interview with Mrs. Dubrow published six weeks before Gore's Teamsters address in which she said "Al jokes that when he was a little boy, I used to sing him the ‘Union Label’ song."

Sometimes Al Gore's critics take the time to get their facts straight. Unfortunately sometimes they don't.

What facts did I get wrong? It was his baby sitter, not his mother? Sue me. Another absolutely pointless point that "democrats " love to specialize in. I guess that YOU didn't know that in the picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein from the 80's that liberals love to wave around, Rumsfeld was actually holding a joy buzzer. Also , check your facts, robots don't joke. I guess it falls into the category of hilarious jokes that need years of explaining, like other "democrat" funny men are wont to crack. Ah-ah-ahhhhhhKERRY!!!. Scuse me. :jester:

[TickleWolf]

Are you suggesting that China and India put out more carbon dioxide than the United States? Just curious.

That is true, if you're talking only about "conventional" pollutants such as Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and particulates. It's not true at all if you're talking about CO2. In fact under Bush the EPA has tried to avoid having to treat CO2 as a pollutant. It wasn't until just this week that a Supreme Court decision forced them to stop that.

So while we've made great strides in some areas, as far as global warming is concerned we've only gotten worse.

Of course there is. How many scientific studies would you like links to?

True, but basically irrelevant, because it hasn't changed this rapidly, and because the causes of those changes are fairly well understood, and this one can't be explained by those mechanisms.

What do you recall, as to how many scientists supported that theory, and how long it lasted?



I know that the first question is a trick question. This doesn't need to be gotten into point by point, because EVERYTING that you've just said proves completely what I've already stated. Links to other sites? That prove what? That you know a bunch of sites that back up your entirely subjective statements? We've made great strides, you say but global warming has gotten worse? You want to say that warming of this planet without a single factory, without a single HUMAN did , or didn't take place as rapidly. How do YOU know? How does anybody? Who has come up with any remotely coherent proof of anything that happened TWO HUNDRED MILLION years ago? No one. That's who. We barely understand what was going on a century ago, within some peoples living memory. The people who are peddling their crackpot THEORIES and passing them off as proof are charletans and snake oil salesmen. That's ALL there is to it. Link a dozen websites, I'll look at them. Link all you want, I love sci-fi. That's all it is. There are dozens more that refute them. And maybe they're wrong.
Do I remember how many scientists and other so-called and self-appointed experts in the 70's said that by 1992 or so North America and Europe would be united in one huge glacier, and NYC would be under hundreds of feet of ice? No. But I do remember that they did. I'm sure that not many will be found that will admit to it now. But they did make a fourtune selling books and holding seminars telling the earnestly gullible these things. Then sometime around 1987 they looked around and asked, "is it getting hot in here, or is it me?" And a whole new INDUSTRY was born. I'd love to take wagers as to how many are the very same con artists. Except, this time, learning from previous business experience, instead of telling people that they'd be canoeing to work down Broadway by 2003, they were smart enough to ensure that they could continue to cash their royalty checks for their entire lifetimes. So, now it's oh, 2117. And now, as then, they can keep a straight face, and quote facts and figures. Looking all scientific like.

[Icycle]

TickleWolf, I realize that your mind is completely made up, and no amount of facts or evidence can possibly persuade you that global warming is real. Nevertheless I will respond to your posting for the benefit of others who might read this thread.

Links to other sites? That prove what? That you know a bunch of sites that back up your entirely subjective statements?
The statements that the the averge global temperature is rising and that the rising temperates are caused by human actions are not subjective statements. They don't exist only in our minds. These statements are verifiable or falsifiable by the scientific method. In fact there is consensus throught the scientific community that these statements are true. Perhaps you do not believe in the scientific method?

We've made great strides, you say but global warming has gotten worse?
We have made great strides in reducing such pollutants as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, ground level ozone, carbon monoxide, and soot. But we have done nothing to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dixoide and methane. Human-generated emissions of these gases have continued to increase. Scientific evidence suggests that part of the reason that global warming as accelerated in the last 20 years is that before then the particulate emissions partially offset the warming effects of the greenhouse gases. But as we have successfully reduced particulate emissions, there cooling effect has also been reduced.

You want to say that warming of this planet without a single factory, without a single HUMAN did , or didn't take place as rapidly.
There are a large number of factors that influence climate now and have influenced climate in the past. Such factors include the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, the tilt of its axis, the energy output of the sun, volcanic activity, asteroid strikes, the composition of the atmosphere, the amount of ice cover at the poles, and more. Although other factors have been important in past climate shifts, the available evidence forces scientists to conclude that human factors, especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, are the primary factor in the current climate shift.

How do YOU know? How does anybody? Who has come up with any remotely coherent proof of anything that happened TWO HUNDRED MILLION years ago? No one. That's who.
Scientists use a large number of lines of evidence to study the history of the Earth's climate, include direct temperature and atmospheric measurements, isotopic analysis of ice cores from glaciers and ice sheets, analysis of ocean sediments, analysis of tree rings, and much more. The result is multiple, overlapping lines of evidence stretching back hundreds of millions of years, through many cycles of glaciation and warming. Each of these data sources is laid down at a well-known rate, so it is possible distinguish between a temperature change that takes place over dozens of years, from one that takes place of thousands of years.

Beyond about 650,000 years ago, the climate record is not as complete or as accurate as for more recent millenia. But we can say definitively that within the last half million years, there has never been as climate shift as abrupt as the one we are currently experiencing. A temperature increase of 5 degrees C that takes place over 1000 years is easily accomodated by the ecosystem, as species gradually migrate towards the poles and up mountain sides, and experience micro-evolutation adaptations to the changing climate over many generations. When the same 5 degree change happens over only 100 years, the species simply can not migrate or evolve fast enough, and mass extinctions will result.

The people who are peddling their crackpot THEORIES and passing them off as proof are charletans and snake oil salesmen. That's ALL there is to it.
Why do you call them crackpot theories? There is near universal consensus amongs all the scientists in the world studying climate and related fields. How could one maintain a conspircy amongst so many thousands of individuals? And what could they possibly gain from it? I think the more likely explanation is that they are simply telling the truth, as best as they understand it.

Link a dozen websites, I'll look at them. Link all you want, I love sci-fi. That's all it is. There are dozens more that refute them. And maybe they're wrong.
There are almost no scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals in the last 10 to 15 years that dispute the basics of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. The few websites that attempt to refute climate change do not use peer-reviewed scientific research. Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is the gold-standard of the scientific process, and it is what ensures that we can trust the results that scientists find. If a scientist refuses to submit his resarch to the peer review process, we must suspect that there is something wrong with his research.

[maniactickler]

Theres just as many scientists claiming there is no man made global warming. the ones that do are just going by an educated guess with the info they have and not by solid proof. im willing to bet alot of those liberal scientists have their own agenda also, which makes it even more skeptical. theres not much we can do anyway even if part of the problem is man made. so count me out. im not falling for the liberal propaganda. id rather keep my money.

[korovan]

Theres just as many scientists claiming there is no man made global warming. the ones that do are just going by an educated guess with the info they have and not by solid proof. im willing to bet alot of those liberal scientists have their own agenda also, which makes it even more skeptical. theres not much we can do anyway even if part of the problem is man made. so count me out. im not falling for the liberal propaganda. id rather keep my money.

And there, in a nutshell, is why nothing substantive will be done to halt/reverse/ameliorate global climate change. Because, when faced with 2 scenarios, one of which involves one's children and grandchildren "canoeing to work" in formerly coastal areas and billions starving around the globe, and the other involves none of that but also being personally a little lighter in the wallet, and without ABSOLUTE INCONTRIVERTIBLE AND PAINFULLY OBVIOUS EVIDENCE that one option or the other is the correct one, most people will elect to keep their money.

[Redmage]

What facts did I get wrong? It was his baby sitter, not his mother?Amazing. You read it, but you didn't comprehend it. You were attempting to attack Gore's credibility by claiming that he said something that was obviously untrue. But even a site critical of Gore acknowledges that his remark was taken out of context and was clearly a joke.

Like I said, get your facts straight. The democrats that live in your head are distorting your ability to percieve reality.

[Redmage]

I know that the first question is a trick question.Nope. You said that the Kyoto Treaty was designed to punish the United states while letting countries like China and India skate by, and you implied that they were worse polluters than the United States. So I asked you if you really believed that China and India produce more CO2 than the US. This isn't a trick question at all, because the only way the Kyoto Treaty could be doing what you claim it's doing is if they do produce more than we do.

So I ask again: do you really believe that China and India produce more CO2 than the United States? It's a simple question. There's no need to run away from it.

This doesn't need to be gotten into point by point, because EVERYTING that you've just said proves completely what I've already stated.Translation: You CAN"T refute it point by point, and you know it.

Links to other sites? That prove what? That you know a bunch of sites that back up your entirely subjective statements?Not sites. Peer-reviewed studies in the scientific literature. Those studies prove that you what you claim is not true: that there is in fact scientific proof of global warming. I'm offering to show you the proof that you claim doesn't exist.

We've made great strides, you say but global warming has gotten worse? You want to say that warming of this planet without a single factory, without a single HUMAN did , or didn't take place as rapidly. How do YOU know? How does anybody? Who has come up with any remotely coherent proof of anything that happened TWO HUNDRED MILLION years ago? No one. That's who.You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Your claims aren't even internally consistent. You claim, for example, that we "know" that the climate has changed over the last 200 million years, because that claim is essential to your belief that what's happening now is just more of the same. But you claim we couldn't possibly know how or why those changes occurred, because that knowledge might threaten what you want to believe.

That kind of willful ignorance is just sad and desperate. But the cure for ignorance is knowledge, and the knowledge is out there, if you're willing to look at it.

Link all you want, I love sci-fi. That's all it is. There are dozens more that refute them. And maybe they're wrong.Not science fiction: science fact. Published studies, as accurate and reliable as the scientific work that gave us this computer you're reading these words on. Want to see them? I assure you, you won't find any similar studies refuting them, because there are none.

Do I remember how many scientists and other so-called and self-appointed experts in the 70's said that by 1992 or so North America and Europe would be united in one huge glacier, and NYC would be under hundreds of feet of ice? No. But I do remember that they did. I'm sure that not many will be found that will admit to it now.As I thought. You're just pulling "facts" out of thin air. There's no need for anyone to "admit" to anything. Science proceeds on the public record. The "ice age" myth was perpetrated not in the scientific literature, but in a handful of "popular science" books, magazine articles, and newspaper articles. In fact very few climate scientists believed this. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concern_in_the_Middle_of_the_Twenti eth_Century) and here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94) for factual information on this myth. And BTW, these are not the papers that I'm offering to show you on global climate change. I'm still waiting to see if you're brave enough to actually read something that poses that much of a threat to your cherished beliefs. Those links are simply pointing out that your childhood memories are actually about a flap in the popular media that did not reflect scientific opinion at the time.

But they did make a fourtune selling books and holding seminars telling the earnestly gullible these things. Then sometime around 1987 they looked around and asked, "is it getting hot in here, or is it me?" And a whole new INDUSTRY was born. I'd love to take wagers as to how many are the very same con artists.I'd take that money, because you're wrong. In fact, the links I posted above quote scientists from as early as 1968 suggesting that CO2 emissions were a threat for Global Warming, and by the mid 1970s that was a real and growing concern among climate scientists. Science is a conservative process however, and it wasn't until the early 90s that scientists felt there was enough evidence to begin making definitive statements.

The sad fact is, you're slinging a bunch of nonsense here, with nothing more than what amounts to religious faith backing it up. I'm still waiting to see if you're willing to set your faith aside and look at real evidence with an open mind. Based on what I've already shown you about your "memories," I'd hope you will, but I don't expect it.

[Redmage]

And there, in a nutshell, is why nothing substantive will be done to halt/reverse/ameliorate global climate change. Because, when faced with 2 scenarios, one of which involves one's children and grandchildren "canoeing to work" in formerly coastal areas and billions starving around the globe, and the other involves none of that but also being personally a little lighter in the wallet, and without ABSOLUTE INCONTRIVERTIBLE AND PAINFULLY OBVIOUS EVIDENCE that one option or the other is the correct one, most people will elect to keep their money.Actually it's worse than that. Maniac and TickleWolf are making claims that are factually, demonstrably false.

In fact, if either of them is willing to take me up on it, I'll make them a little wager. Maniac claims that there are "just as many" scientists making claims that refute global warming as there are scientists who support the theory. That's easily checked. I can put up 15 citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers on anthropogenic climate change, and he can put up 15 peer-reviewed scientific papers from the same time period that refute it. Seems simple enough, no?

[TickleWolf]

Nope. You said that the Kyoto Treaty was designed to punish the United states while letting countries like China and India skate by, and you implied that they were worse polluters than the United States. So I asked you if you really believed that China and India produce more CO2 than the US. This isn't a trick question at all, because the only way the Kyoto Treaty could be doing what you claim it's doing is if they do produce more than we do.

So I ask again: do you really believe that China and India produce more CO2 than the United States? It's a simple question. There's no need to run away from it.

Translation: You CAN"T refute it point by point, and you know it.

Not sites. Peer-reviewed studies in the scientific literature. Those studies prove that you what you claim is not true: that there is in fact scientific proof of global warming. I'm offering to show you the proof that you claim doesn't exist.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Your claims aren't even internally consistent. You claim, for example, that we "know" that the climate has changed over the last 200 million years, because that claim is essential to your belief that what's happening now is just more of the same. But you claim we couldn't possibly know how or why those changes occurred, because that knowledge might threaten what you want to believe.

That kind of willful ignorance is just sad and desperate. But the cure for ignorance is knowledge, and the knowledge is out there, if you're willing to look at it.

Not science fiction: science fact. Published studies, as accurate and reliable as the scientific work that gave us this computer you're reading these words on. Want to see them? I assure you, you won't find any similar studies refuting them, because there are none.

As I thought. You're just pulling "facts" out of thin air. There's no need for anyone to "admit" to anything. Science proceeds on the public record. The "ice age" myth was perpetrated not in the scientific literature, but in a handful of "popular science" books, magazine articles, and newspaper articles. In fact very few climate scientists believed this. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concern_in_the_Middle_of_the_Twenti eth_Century) and here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94) for factual information on this myth. And BTW, these are not the papers that I'm offering to show you on global climate change. I'm still waiting to see if you're brave enough to actually read something that poses that much of a threat to your cherished beliefs. Those links are simply pointing out that your childhood memories are actually about a flap in the popular media that did not reflect scientific opinion at the time.

I'd take that money, because you're wrong. In fact, the links I posted above quote scientists from as early as 1968 suggesting that CO2 emissions were a threat for Global Warming, and by the mid 1970s that was a real and growing concern among climate scientists. Science is a conservative process however, and it wasn't until the early 90s that scientists felt there was enough evidence to begin making definitive statements.

The sad fact is, you're slinging a bunch of nonsense here, with nothing more than what amounts to religious faith backing it up. I'm still waiting to see if you're willing to set your faith aside and look at real evidence with an open mind. Based on what I've already shown you about your "memories," I'd hope you will, but I don't expect it.




Listen, I'm not going to crawl into the slime of an insult-fest with you . I'm sad, ignorant, desperate, this that, what else? Whatever. You want to twist my words around and insert snide commentary in between each sentence, by all means , I know it's how you get your jollies.
I didn't say the Kyoto treato was "designed to puinish" the US, just for example. Just that it was a lousy treaty. But just go right ahead, and insert your own personal, and entirely subjective comments. Call me names, no less. Unlike you, I don't live to drag people into endless 97 post arguements here. Can I, or anyone else, dredge up links to prove any and every point? Yep. Will I do so on your marching orders? Don't hold your breath. You want to insult me personally and expect me to play along. Right. There are no facts or figures in the above diatribe. Just arrogance and insults. I would have been willing to get into this with you, but you need to learn some manners before I'll take the time to discuss anything with you. I'd suggest you start by going around talking to people off the internet the way you talk to them on the internet. You'll manner up, fast. :evilha:

[Haltickling]

Redmage, I agree with you. Some people just dodge all sensible arguments, spewing forth false ideological opinions and declaring them facts. Enough to make even the sanest person lose patience. And when that happens, they accuse you of being aggressive. Don't bother, they're not worth it.

People who still deny man-made global warming are not only closing their eyes to the truth; they pull the curtains, switch off the light, blindfold themselves, put a barrel over their head, and then sit down in a dark room. They don't WANT to see the truth, because it might overturn their ideology. Maybe they won't get old enough to feel the effects themselves, that's all they can hope for.

[maniactickler]

Redmage, I agree with you. Some people just dodge all sensible arguments, spewing forth false ideological opinions and declaring them facts. Enough to make even the sanest person lose patience. And when that happens, they accuse you of being aggressive. Don't bother, they're not worth it.

People who still deny man-made global warming are not only closing their eyes to the truth; they pull the curtains, switch off the light, blindfold themselves, put a barrel over their head, and then sit down in a dark room. They don't WANT to see the truth, because it might overturn their ideology. Maybe they won't get old enough to feel the effects themselves, that's all they can hope for.

Who says we non believers of man made global warming are closing our eyes? maybe its you believers who are being duped and have your eyes closed yourselves.

[maniactickler]

Actually it's worse than that. Maniac and TickleWolf are making claims that are factually, demonstrably false.

In fact, if either of them is willing to take me up on it, I'll make them a little wager. Maniac claims that there are "just as many" scientists making claims that refute global warming as there are scientists who support the theory. That's easily checked. I can put up 15 citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers on anthropogenic climate change, and he can put up 15 peer-reviewed scientific papers from the same time period that refute it. Seems simple enough, no?

It wouldnt matter even if 20 scientists believed in it, but 5 didnt. unless theres 100% agreement with every scientist on the planet, then man made global warming must be taken as just opinion.

[korovan]

It wouldnt matter even if 20 scientists believed in it, but 5 didnt. unless theres 100% agreement with every scientist on the planet, then man made global warming must be taken as just opinion.

Er.... that's absurd, Maniactickler. There isn't 100% agreement on ANYTHING (scientific or not) in this world. There will always be hold-outs and crack-pots and oh yes people who are paid to promote or discredit a theory based on politics/economics/ideolgies...

Let's pick another example: HIV/AIDS. There are people out there (some with advanced degrees) who will look you in the eye and tell you with a straight face that HIVAIDS is God's punishment on the wicked, and that therefore it is both futile and immoral to try to control its spread or cure it... These people are commited to this opinion and will never ever change it, regardless of what the rest of the world's medical and scientic community thinks.

By your reasoning Maniactickler, all efforts to combat AIDS should be abandoned, because 100% of the "scientists" involved don't agree and so the idea that AIDS is "a problem" should be considered as "just opinion."

[Icycle]

It wouldnt matter even if 20 scientists believed in it, but 5 didnt. unless theres 100% agreement with every scientist on the planet, then man made global warming must be taken as just opinion.

That is not very good method for distinguishing between fact and opinion. By that reasoning, if we could find even a single scientist on the planet who believes that the earth is flat, then the idea that the earth is a sphere has no more or less value than any other model of the shape of the earth.

This kind of reasoning completely ignores that some statements have large amounts of evidence to back them up, and others have little or no evidence to back them up. We should tend to prefer those statements that are backed up by evidence.

In the case of flat earth vs. round earth, the immediate, obvious naive answer is that the earth is clearly flat: everywhere you look it appears to be more or less flat. However, that is about all the evidence available for that viewpoint. On the hand, you can observe that a ship gradually disappears over the horizon as it travel away from you, or that if you travel around the equator in a straight line you will eventually return to where you started, or that the earth casts a round shadow during lunar eclipses, or that pictures from space show the earth being round. Both are theories of shape of the earth, but we should believe that the earth is round because the evidence is overwhelming and comes from many different sources.

[korovan]

I think the world is going to end on March 26, 2008 and there's nothing anyone can do about it! :firedevil

LOL.... I totally agree Happy Boy: there's nothing anyone can do... about you thinking that.

[TickleWolf]

I and others have pointed out in the past that when one has the temerity to disagree with liberals all they can expect is hysterical, vitriol spewing hatred . This is just one more example. Naturally the self-appointed and self-described sensible enlightened and open minded liberal individuals around here will agree with one another. Naturally those who like to swing the word "FACT" around like a billy club so far have produced not a single one themselves. So far all they have done is express opinions, threaten to post their learned "proofs" that will ( I assure you) prove absolutely nothing while making sure that they are deliberately couched in absolutely arrogant, sneering , condescending language. As befits those who have given themselves the license to look down from lofty heights upon others. After all, those of us who dwell in darkness , who live in ignorance ,who refuse to walk in the path of Our Gore, deserve no better in their eyes.
Contrary to what has been repeatedly , and dishonestly been insisted on, by those who are calling me dishonest, is that I have stated facts. Here are some facts: Our Gore says that sea levels will rise by 20 feet more or less in the next hundred years. Google wikipedia "An Inconvenient Truth" for back up of his holy words. Fact, the UN's IPCC report, AFTER DOWNGRADING it's own estimate by %25, has projected a figure of a sea level rise of about 17 inches. INCHES, not feet. That's from an article in the London Telegraph from 11/12/06. That's a difference of research/ opinion, call it what you will of, as I have said before, ABOUT 19 FEET .That's a fact. So, to try to restate what I was saying before all the shrieking and name calling and interrogating started, there is in FACT, a HUGE fucking discrepancy in all of the so-called facts even among those who believe in the occurence of global warming.
So Hal, Redmage, where the fuck do either of you two get off calling anybody names, or calling anybody dishonest or of pontifivcting about who does or does not choose to live in darkness when the REAL supposed facts are so vastly and OBVIOUSLY different? It's not about facts with people like you, it's about possessing the revealed truth as the Party and it's genius leaders reveal it. And attacking anyone that disagrees, even when none of YOUR OWN FACTS add up. That's a fact "gentlemen".

[Icycle]

Theres just as many scientists claiming there is no man made global warming.

As Redmage pointed out, this is actually a testable statement. We can determine whether it is true or false. Luckily for us, people have already counted for us and found that nearly all scientists studying the climate agree that the climate is warming, and human activity is the primary cause.

The reason there may be a perception in the non-scientific community that there is active depate on the topic is because many journalists try to apply the concept of balanace to the topic, so they sometimes give equal time to the climate change refuters and to the climate change supporters. The difference is that within the scientific community, the supports constitute an overwhelming majority of scientists. The refuters are often not even publishing scientific research on climate change. Many of them are simply paid shills in the employ of oil companies and other idustries that may be impacted by action on climate change.

the ones that do are just going by an educated guess with the info they have and not by solid proof.

The evidence for human caused climate change is very broad and very deep. It spans such scientific disciples as climatology, ecology, evolutionary biology, dendrochronology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and more. We have multiple overlapping lines of evidence from many fields, and they all point to the same conclusion. This enormous mass of evidence proves that climate change is real and is caused by humans.

im willing to bet alot of those liberal scientists have their own agenda also, which makes it even more skeptical.

If the "liberal" scientists had some kind of agenda that was tainting their results, then it should be very easy for "conservative" scientists to perform scientific research that disproves the "liberal" findings. That isn't happening because you can't disprove something which is actually true. There is plenty of money from the Bush administration and from the oil and coal industries to fund "conservative" climate research, but these "conservative" scientists simply can't refute human caused climate change, because it is actually happening.

theres not much we can do anyway even if part of the problem is man made.

There's a lot we can do as a society and that you can do personally to mitigate human-caused climate change. The original post in this thread gave a few very good legislative ideas that would go a long way towards averting additional climate change. And I posted a thread a few months ago that gave some good ideas for saving money as well as reduce your personal impact on climate change, such as using compact fluorescent bulbs, and driving a fuel efficient car.

Combating climate change doesn't have to mean going back to thehorse-and-buggy and exhanging paper letters written by candlelight. The cost of combating climate change doesn't have to be large; it might cost the average American something like a few hundred dollars a year. And we don't necessarily have to give up all of our modern conviences; in many cases there are more efficient options that work as well or better than what we currently use (e.g. CF bulbs and hybrid cars).

so count me out. im not falling for the liberal propaganda. id rather keep my money.

I don't know how old you are, or if you have any children, but the cost of doing nothing will be much larger than the cost of mitigating climate change. By spending $500 per year now, you may be able to avoid a cost of $10,000 per year in the future.

[Icycle]

Contrary to what has been repeatedly , and dishonestly been insisted on, by those who are calling me dishonest, is that I have stated facts. Here are some facts: Our Gore says that sea levels will rise by 20 feet more or less in the next hundred years. Google wikipedia "An Inconvenient Truth" for back up of his holy words. Fact, the UN's IPCC report, AFTER DOWNGRADING it's own estimate by %25, has projected a figure of a sea level rise of about 17 inches. INCHES, not feet. That's from an article in the London Telegraph from 11/12/06. That's a difference of research/ opinion, call it what you will of, as I have said before, ABOUT 19 FEET .That's a fact. So, to try to restate what I was saying before all the shrieking and name calling and interrogating started, there is in FACT, a HUGE fucking discrepancy in all of the so-called facts even among those who believe in the occurence of global warming.
The UN IPCC report states what is the likely range of ocean level rise within the next century. It doesn't talk about what will happen beyond that time.

In "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore mentions that if the Greenland ice sheet and/or the Antarctic ice sheet were to melt completely, it could result in a sea level rise of 20 feet. He did not give a time frame for how quickly this would occur. He certainly did not say that it would happen within 100 years. Most scientists believe that it would take a few thousand years.

It's important to note that even a sea level rise of 17 inches is every significant. Major cities such as London and New Orleans are already at or below sea level. Most of Florida, the nation of Bangladesh, and many Pacific island nations are at sea level or barely above it. And almost the entire country of the Netherlands is actually below sea level behind dikes. A sea level rise of 17 inches would inundate some of these areas, and threaten others with more frequent and much more devestating floods. There is the potential for millions of people to be displaced from their homes by the rising waters within the next century. Some low lying Pacific island nations may disappear altogether. We shouldn't have to wait for a 20 foot sea level rise that would wipe out Disney World before we decide to take action.

[korovan]

As there have been repeated calls for "the facts", here is a link to a good Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) with many citations and numerous links to other related topics... I will only quote the introduction below to give interested parties a look at the tone of the piece...

"Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

Global average air temperature near Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950.[1] These conclusions have been endorsed by at least 20 scientific societies and academies of science, including ALL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE OF THE G8 STATES. Some scientists disagree with parts of this conclusion as does the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.[2] Only a few of these dissenting scientists specialize in climate science."

OK, Korovan here: I freely admit that I "bolded" and "ALL-CAPPED" the above passage to draw attention to it.... ahem, to continue:

"Models referenced by the IPCC predict that global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.[1] The range of values reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as uncertainties regarding climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if no further greenhouse gases are released after this date.[1] This reflects the long average atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide (CO2).

An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a rising sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. There may also be increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, though it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. Other consequences include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and especially how changes will vary from region to region across the globe. A hotly contested political and public debate also has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combating greenhouse gas emissions."

I think it's an informative article, and I'll be following all the links (and links from the links) for wa while.....

[Robace252]

Reading this thread reminds me of a few things......and let me make something we all should know clear......I am very far from being a liberal, so take my statements as my opinion and not from the far left.

First let me state a few things just as a freindly reminder....
please attack the post, not the posters. There has actually been more ill-will in the General Discussion Forum than in the P&R lately. If you have a constructive comment, please enter it, but we dont need personal attacks and name calling.

Secondly, it up to each of you...but Wiki is not a reptuable source for debating. If a middle school doesnt allow it used for a research paper, I certainly wouldnt accept it as a source for anything.

Now then....again I am far from being a liberal or 100% pro-enviromentalist but there is cause for concern for global warming. It is a fact and is happening. Is it all due to man, no. But a good portion of it is. I see all the conflicting data and see things from both sides. How tempertaures were higher without humans on the planet, constant global changes without humans and how in the Middle Ages it was warm enough to grow grapes in England. Also Ive seen the reports of how tests were done that show that Ice melting will not raise the sea levels, the use the example of filling a swimming pool with water and ice, and after the ice melted the pool barely raised 1/16 of an inch. But I also see the data that shows what everything we put into the atmosphere does cause problems below. How diffrent various levels on the ocean floor contribute to the raising of the level as well as the change in currents.
There might be conflicting studies, but my eyes dont decieve me and there is something going on. Whether its all human or part human, there are things we can do to change it. Of course the talk now of changing to bio-fuels have come under fire by US farmers changing corn crops over to biofuels means less food for the planet and higher food prices and now people from hunger agencies want the US not to invest as much into bio-fuels.
It is all very confusing. But at the very least we should be looking at ways to curb global pollution and keep the planet healthier for a longer peroid of time.

While Gore's recomndations are noble, a lot of them are not practical right now. I really cant go into them line by line, Im not a scientist or pretend to understand everything. But what I do know is there is something that we as humans do that contributes to global warming and while we might not be able to change things that are natural changes to the Earth, there is certainly more than enough things that we can do to change what we have done and continue to do.

Rob

[TickleWolf]

The UN IPCC report states what is the likely range of ocean level rise within the next century. It doesn't talk about what will happen beyond that time.

In "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore mentions that if the Greenland ice sheet and/or the Antarctic ice sheet were to melt completely, it could result in a sea level rise of 20 feet. He did not give a time frame for how quickly this would occur. He certainly did not say that it would happen within 100 years. Most scientists believe that it would take a few thousand years.

It's important to note that even a sea level rise of 17 inches is every significant. Major cities such as London and New Orleans are already at or below sea level. Most of Florida, the nation of Bangladesh, and many Pacific island nations are at sea level or barely above it. And almost the entire country of the Netherlands is actually below sea level behind dikes. A sea level rise of 17 inches would inundate some of these areas, and threaten others with more frequent and much more devestating floods. There is the potential for millions of people to be displaced from their homes by the rising waters within the next century. Some low lying Pacific island nations may disappear altogether. We shouldn't have to wait for a 20 foot sea level rise that would wipe out Disney World before we decide to take action.

I understand what you're saying. But don't you think that Our Gore's open ended, ephemeral figure is one of those very reasons people are sceptical? So, he just waves that number around screaming it at the top of his lungs. It's in books , movies , etc. It's a meaningless number, used for one purpose , to drum up hysteria. To bludgeon and browbeat dissenters by calling everyone who questions them ignorant and of course there's always worse . The utterly graceless Barbara Boxer, acting as the Grand Inquisitor at hearings sets the pace by calling those who question all these wildly different estimates members of the Flat Earth Society. So goes the debate as conducted by the openminded, enlightened liberals.
You know people are pretty creative. The Dutch reclaimed a lot of it's land from the sea. A long time ago at that. If any problems do arise over the course of the next hundred years I think that modern, and even more advanced technology will solve them. There's no need to used hyped up emotionalism as the wedge for some liberal orchestrated power grab into our lives any time in the immediate future. Because that is what's fueling a good deal of the hysyeria and hatred from the left. People who dare to stand in their way drive them absolutely berserk with uncontrollable , furious RAGE! "We're so smart and good and enlightened! Don't you stupid fuckers understand that? We only want what's best for all you dumb, blind animals! We MUST protect you from yourselves! Only we who are superior truly see the way forward! " Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure. :firedevil

[maniactickler]

Er.... that's absurd, Maniactickler. There isn't 100% agreement on ANYTHING (scientific or not) in this world. There will always be hold-outs and crack-pots and oh yes people who are paid to promote or discredit a theory based on politics/economics/ideolgies...

Let's pick another example: HIV/AIDS. There are people out there (some with advanced degrees) who will look you in the eye and tell you with a straight face that HIVAIDS is God's punishment on the wicked, and that therefore it is both futile and immoral to try to control its spread or cure it... These people are commited to this opinion and will never ever change it, regardless of what the rest of the world's medical and scientic community thinks.

By your reasoning Maniactickler, all efforts to combat AIDS should be abandoned, because 100% of the "scientists" involved don't agree and so the idea that AIDS is "a problem" should be considered as "just opinion."


OK, so in my opinion, and many others, its the scientists that believe in man made global warming that are the crack pots.

[maniactickler]

Am i wrong, or do i remember hearing that these scientists predicted an upcoming ice age about 30 years ago? to me, its just a political scheme from the libs and environmentalists to bleed us for more money. we couldnt destroy this planet if we tried. unless we had an all out nuclear war.

[TickleWolf]

It's funny, but just to prove the point, and entirely co-incidentaly ,there's an article in the news section of Yahoo's main page about a weather forcaster who disputes the global warming/hurricane link.

[Mastertank1]

Am i wrong, or do i remember hearing that these scientists predicted an upcoming ice age about 30 years ago? to me, its just a political scheme from the libs and environmentalists to bleed us for more money. we couldnt destroy this planet if we tried. unless we had an all out nuclear war.
They didn't predict an ice age. They said that global warming might trigger one, when it became severe enough to melt significant quantities of the ice caps, which is happening now. They said the decreased salinity of the sea water at the far northern and southern ends of the thermohaline flow might cause that flow to stop, an event which has triggered ice ages before. (Google Younger-Dryas)
As of today, the thermohaline flow has slowed noticeably due to the masses of fresh water flowing off of Greenland and West Antarctica.

Of course, it could be that the real cause of global warming is rednecks setting fire to their beer-and-beans farts! You never know.

As far as who is the crackpot fringe; well over 99% of all scientists in relevant fields belive in global warming and that it is human caused. The way less than 1% who profess to disagree are ALL, with NO exceptions, employed directly or indirectly by the biggest polluters in the world. Multinational corporations with massive financial stakes in preventing the world's governments from taking any action to reduce pollution. It might make a reasonable person wonder if maybe those less than 1% are spouting lies at the orders of the ones who pay them, mightent it?
Duh!

[Redmage]

They didn't predict an ice age. They said that global warming might trigger one, when it became severe enough to melt significant quantities of the ice caps, which is happening now. They said the decreased salinity of the sea water at the far northern and southern ends of the thermohaline flow might cause that flow to stop, an event which has triggered ice ages before. (Google Younger-Dryas)Two different things. First off, Maniac is wrong about the ice age predictions. He's thinking of a series of popular-science articles that appeared in heavy-duty science journals like Newsweek, and a sensational book or two. They pulled some quotes SEVERELY out of context from actual science journal articles that predicted natural cycles should bring about another ice age sometime in the next 20,000 YEARS. A few other misquoted scientific papers were about a cooling period in the middle part of the 20th century, but they weren't predicting ice ages. None of this was a reflection of the opinions of climate scientists at the time, but the right-wing talk shows that Maniac likes to get his news from have been treating them as though they were.

I posted some links about all of this in one of my replies to Ticklewolf. You might like to check them out. I'll be glad to see someone get some use out of them, at least.

Thermohaline collapse (which is what you're talking about) is a different matter. That's a relatively recent prediction, but the scientific jury is still out on it. In theory, it's possible that the thermohaline cycle that maintains the Gulf Stream could collapse as global warming causes the fresh water locked in the Arctic ice to melt. If that does happen, then the climate in Northeastern North America and Northwestern Europe will become more like that of Siberia. It's not clear yet how likely this is though.

Listen, I'm not going to crawl into the slime of an insult-fest with you.Excellent. Does this mean you'll be crawling out soon?

You want to twist my words around and insert snide commentary in between each sentence, by all means , I know it's how you get your jollies.If I wanted to, it wouldn't be hard. But just leaving your words as you wrote them is more than enough, I think. And you're still ducking and weaving on every question I've presented you with.

I didn't say the Kyoto treato was "designed to puinish" the US, just for example. Just that it was a lousy treaty.What you actually said is that it would "hamstring" the United States. I suppose there are planets where that wouldn't be considered punishment. You also said that it would allow "the worst kind of polluters like China and India get off scott free." I suppose there are also planets where that wouldn't mean that China and India were more serious producers of CO2 than the US, but they probably don't speak English on those planets.

I've asked you twice now whether you actually believe that China and India produce more CO2 than we do. Both times you've backed off in a cloud of bluster. I can't understand that myself - it seems like a simple enough question. You're certainly not shy about sharing your beliefs on other subjects.

The thing is, if you do believe that, then you're wrong (because in fact they don't). But if you don't believe that then your statements about the Kyoto Treaty don't make any sense, because if we do produce more than they do then it only makes sense that we should have to reduce emissions more than they do.

So either you're wrong, or you're talking nonsense. It's up to you which you'd prefer, but that's not twisting your words. It's just how your words and the facts intersect in the real world.

Can I, or anyone else, dredge up links to prove any and every point? Yep. Will I do so on your marching orders? Don't hold your breath.I assure you, I'm not. I know that in fact you can't find any peer-reviewed scientific papers to support you, because they don't exist. It's easy to say "Sure, I can prove it, but I'm not going to, so there." I heard that kind of line in schoolyards a lot when I was growing up.

If you can put the proof where your mouth is, great. I'd like to see it. If not, then you'll keep blustering about it. My money is on the bluster.

Er.... that's absurd, Maniactickler. There isn't 100% agreement on ANYTHING (scientific or not) in this world. There will always be hold-outs and crack-pots and oh yes people who are paid to promote or discredit a theory based on politics/economics/ideolgies...

Let's pick another example: HIV/AIDS. There are people out there (some with advanced degrees) who will look you in the eye and tell you with a straight face that HIVAIDS is God's punishment on the wicked, and that therefore it is both futile and immoral to try to control its spread or cure it... These people are commited to this opinion and will never ever change it, regardless of what the rest of the world's medical and scientic community thinks.You don't even need to bring religion into it. There are a fair few scientists (perhaps a few dozen) who believe that AIDS is not even caused by the HIV virus. Their most prominent member is Dr. Peter Duesberg, a professor of microbiology at UC Berkeley. So Maniac would have us believe that since not every scientist in the world believes that HIV causes AIDS, we should just pretend that it doesn't. Absurd.

The best part of all this, for my money, is that Maniac declared categorically that there are just as many scientists who are critical of climate change theory as there are who support it. Asked to offer evidence of that he backpedals and says that it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Likewise Ticklewolf - he makes great sweeping (and internally inconsistent) statements about the science of climate change, but when asked for proof he says that he just doesn't happen to feeling proving it, but he could if he wanted to. :idontwann

Gotta love the rational debate there.

Secondly, it up to each of you...but Wiki is not a reptuable source for debating. If a middle school doesnt allow it used for a research paper, I certainly wouldnt accept it as a source for anything.I won't get into my usual defense of Wikipedia. Suffice it to say that those who criticize it should look up information on how it compares with print encyclopedias. For right now, I'll just point out that the Wikipedia article on Global Warming was posted mainly as a one-stop-shopping list of links to non-Wiki sources on this topic. For that, it's perfectly adequate no matter what one thinks of it in general.

While Gore's recomndations are noble, a lot of them are not practical right now.Probably true. I think they're good goals to shoot for though. However close we manage to get to them, we'll be better off than we are now.

[Dave2112]

Ok, let's simmer down here. This is not a topic that's going to move anyone over to anyone else's side. Nothing major yet, but it's gotten dangerously close to personal attackes several times. No more. Period.

There's truth to both sides of this debate. Like anything else where politics are involved, both sides are basically looking out for thier own interests. Large corporations who will lose money if forced to act responsibly toward the planet the rest of us have to inhabit will invariably hire anyone they can find to prove that there's no such problem. (Micheal Crichton? Come on...) Money above all else, as usual. And the politicians on thier payroll will go along as they always do. It's the classic case of "let the next generations deal with my mess, as long as I keep making money now."

On the other hand, large organizations from the other side depend in large part on government grants and money from other vested interests. If they find nothing, they get no more money. So, maneagable problems become apocolyptic.

Honestly, I really do think there's a problem with our effect on the global environment. You simply can't introduce artificial elements into a natural world and expect no change. It makes no sense to anyone with an ounce of intellect or sanity. However, I really do not feel that it's something that can't be controlled. The problem is...nobody wants to start controlling it. "There's time, there's always time." It's that attitude that troubles me. Again, it's all about the money, always has been. Maybe the world isn't exactly falling apart now, but eventually, our effects will be seen...it's a scientific inevitibility. Ignoring it, or hiring science fiction writers to debunk the truth isn't going to help. The "Chicken Little" tactics aren't helping either.

Hopefully, we as a species, the one that's inherited the planet, can work together to find a solution and leave money and power out of it.

[Redmage]

Good point. I agree. I don't think 100+ years of Right Guard Deodorant spray, Honda Civics and 3 way light bulbs are going to destroy the earth. Man just isn't that powerful...Man is more powerful than you think. But let's get clear: Global warming is not going to destroy the planet. No scientist says it will. However it may very well make it impossible for the planet to support the number of people who live on it now, and cause so much damage to current human societies that we won't recognize them when it's over.

So if you ask, "Can man destroy the planet?" then the answer is "No, not at the moment." But if you ask, "Can man cause the wholesale extinction of species and climatic changes that could make the planet unlivable for most of the current population?" then the answer is most definitely yes. We've driven thousands of species to extinction already, and we were changing the faces of continents even before the industrial revolution. With the power we have now, we can do much more than that, and there's solid evidence to indicate that we are.

[korovan]

OK, so in my opinion, and many others, its the scientists that believe in man made global warming that are the crack pots.

Yes, I get that. I'll point out AGAIN that the world-wide scientific community (especially those whose specialities include meteorology, climatology, and geology) does believe in global anthropogenic climate change. Of course, the majority view of a scientific issue CAN be wrong (e.g. Ptolemeic celestial )mechanics) and the minority CAN be right (Copernicus, Galileo, etc)... but the minority had better come up with some pretty dramatic PROOF that they are right and the scientific majority is wrong... and so far the "global warming deniers" haven't done that to anyone's satisfaction but their own.

But no matter. IN fact, I believe that in defiance of all logic, mankind will continue to ignore the whole thing until it is blindingly obvious to even the dullest.... by which time it will be too late to do anything to help. Why? Because it is simpler and easier to do nothing than to do something, and humans are prone to take the easy path.

Maniactickler, Ticklewolf, et al.... you might be right, or you might be wrong. The thing is, if you are wrong then future generations will curse you for your complacency (and curse me for not fighting harder) as they face the harsh realities of a life that is much tougher on them than it ever needed to be... and all because some people couldn't be bothered to change their lifestyles a little or who thought it was all petty politics or an excuse to sell books and DVDs....

[TickleWolf]

Excellent. Does this mean you'll be crawling out soon?

If I wanted to, it wouldn't be hard. But just leaving your words as you wrote them is more than enough, I think. And you're still ducking and weaving on every question I've presented you with.

What you actually said is that it would "hamstring" the United States. I suppose there are planets where that wouldn't be considered punishment. You also said that it would allow "the worst kind of polluters like China and India get off scott free." I suppose there are also planets where that wouldn't mean that China and India were more serious producers of CO2 than the US, but they probably don't speak English on those planets.

I've asked you twice now whether you actually believe that China and India produce more CO2 than we do. Both times you've backed off in a cloud of bluster. I can't understand that myself - it seems like a simple enough question. You're certainly not shy about sharing your beliefs on other subjects.

The thing is, if you do believe that, then you're wrong (because in fact they don't). But if you don't believe that then your statements about the Kyoto Treaty don't make any sense, because if we do produce more than they do then it only makes sense that we should have to reduce emissions more than they do.

So either you're wrong, or you're talking nonsense. It's up to you which you'd prefer, but that's not twisting your words. It's just how your words and the facts intersect in the real world.

I assure you, I'm not. I know that in fact you can't find any peer-reviewed scientific papers to support you, because they don't exist. It's easy to say "Sure, I can prove it, but I'm not going to, so there." I heard that kind of line in schoolyards a lot when I was growing up.

If you can put the proof where your mouth is, great. I'd like to see it. If not, then you'll keep blustering about it. My money is on the bluster.




Right, thank you for pointing all that out.

Again, I ask, why would anyone want to engage in a discussion of this nature? Every line dripping with smarmy, condescending arrogance.
I'm not discussing this with you. I guess I didn't make that clear enough the first time. Is it clear now? See that'll give you the chance to get the last word in. You can even slip in a couple of peer reviewed scientific papers while you're at it.

[Redmage]

Yes, I get that. I'll point out AGAIN that the world-wide scientific community (especially those whose specialities include meteorology, climatology, and geology) does believe in global anthropogenic climate change. Of course, the majority view of a scientific issue CAN be wrong (e.g. Ptolemeic celestial )mechanics) and the minority CAN be right (Copernicus, Galileo, etc)... but the minority had better come up with some pretty dramatic PROOF that they are right and the scientific majority is wrong... and so far the "global warming deniers" haven't done that to anyone's satisfaction but their own.The important thing to realize about this is that on the occasions when the majority has been wrong and the minority right, the majority has ALWAYS come to see that. And historically that change has taken less and less time over the years. The change in opinion on the Copernican theory took several decades. The change in opinion on evolution took perhaps 20-25 years. The change from Newtonian Mechanics to Relativity and Quantum Theory took a decade or so.

And in fact global warming theory has already been through this cycle. There was a time (back in the middle 70s) when those who believed in anthropogenic climate change were in the minority. Now they are by far in the majority. And there has never, in all the history of science, been a case where the majority opinion changed and then changed back.

[Redmage]

I'm not discussing this with you. I guess I didn't make that clear enough the first time. Is it clear now? See that'll give you the chance to get the last word in. You can even slip in a couple of peer reviewed scientific papers while you're at it.You were more than happy to discuss it until someone had the nerve to ask you to back up your opinions with facts. But, as you wish. I'll even give you a paper or two, by your request.

2005: Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431-1435 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html)

Global Change in the Upper Atmosphere; Science 24 November 2006; Vol. 314. no. 5803, pp. 1253 - 1254 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/314/5803/1253)

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; February 2007 (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)

The second paper is of particular interest to those who want to argue that current climate change is the result of increases in solar radiation. If that were true, then we would expect that the entire atmosphere would be warming up.

On the other hand global warming theory says that carbon dioxide in the lower atmosphere is trapping solar heat that would normally be radiated back into space. If that's the case then we would expect the lower atmosphere to heat up while the upper atmosphere cools. As that second paper points out, that's what we're actually observing.

Perhaps they'll do some good. Or not.

[kurchatovium]

Do they say anothing about reduction in cloud cover Redmage I cant seem to access it? Supposedly thats the mechanism is reduction of cloud cover by increased bombardment by solar radiation. I would supsect that the paper might be correct in that assumption but I suspect the density changes between layers might affect temps as well. It seems though the easiest way to argue against cloud cover reduction is to measure cloud cover. I am just interested in the science here by the way they may well be right but I am curious. Thanks for the links.

[Redmage]

Do they say anothing about reduction in cloud cover Redmage I cant seem to access it? Supposedly thats the mechanism is reduction of cloud cover by increased bombardment by solar radiation. I would supsect that the paper might be correct in that assumption but I suspect the density changes between layers might affect temps as well. It seems though the easiest way to argue against cloud cover reduction is to measure cloud cover. I am just interested in the science here by the way they may well be right but I am curious. Thanks for the links.Take a look at the IPCC paper. The first one I linked is on changes in ocean temperature, and the second is on temperature changes in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, above most clouds. So neither of those addresses cloud cover. The IPCC survey is more comprehensive.

If you can formulate the exact question you're interested in, I can look for papers that address it.

[kurchatovium]

I looked at the first paper but since I dont have adobe plug in on this laptop I can only read the abstract. I have the similar problem with the second paper I can only get the two line abstract, not the whole paper cause you need to subscribe to science magazine to get the whole paper.


The solar radiation argument goes as follows as far as I know.

Increased Solar Radiation ===> Decreased Cloud Cover ===> Less Solar Radiation Reflected Back Into Space ===> Increase In Temperature

So my question is has anyone directly measured cloud cover increases or decreases? If cloud cover is indeed decreasing that could be a problem for the climate. Though how great a threat it is I am not quite sure at this point.


The problem is there may be other factors. Another NASA paper says smoke can also inhibit cloud cover formation. See link below.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/mar/HQ_04081_smoke_clouds.html

So this sorta why I would love to know if cloud cover is in fact decreasing.
this then would goto the following:

Cloud Cover is decreasing and second paper you mention is correct (lets say) ==> this would possible mean Cloud Cover is not a significant contributor to Global Warming and need not be worried about.

Cloud Cover is the same or increasing ===> then by its own method it is not contributing to Global Warming and again need not be worried about.

Cloud Cover is decreasing and second paper you mention is not correct (again lets just say) ====> then cloud cover could still be something we need to worry about in terms of anything that affects it.

Thanks for all your time by the way, I appreciate it. :D

[Redmage]

Kurch, there seems to be some data on that, but the studies don't go back very far. We couldn't make truly systematic surveys of global cloud cover until we had a good network of global weather satellites.

I've had time for only a cursory search so far, but I have found something of interest. It's a letter from the Journal Eos, discussing the fact that global temperatures are rising while the Earth's albedo (reflectance, though you probably already know that) is also increasing. The letter (http://www.bbso.njit.edu/~epb/reprints/Palle_etal_EOS_2006.pdf) mentions the following:

"The most up-to-date cloud data, released in August 2005 from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), a careful compilation of cloud observations covering the entire Earth from a range of meteorological satellites, reveal that the explanation of this seeming anomaly lies primarily in a redistribution of the clouds. Whereas low clouds have decreased during the most recent years, high clouds have increased to a larger extent, leading to both an increase in cloud amount (higher albedo) and an increased trapping of infrared radiation by clouds (increased heating)."

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a note in one of their FAQs (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) : "Improved satellite data shows that a general trend of increasing cloud amount over both land and ocean since the early 1980s, seems to have reversed in the early 1990s, and total cloud amount of land and ocean now appears to be decreasing. However, there are several studies that suggest regional cloudiness, perhaps especially in the thick precipitating clouds has increased over the 20th century."

It appears that overall the earth's cloud cover may be decreasing at the moment, but that actually the earth's reflectiveness or albedo is increasing. Yet despite the increase in albedo the earth's temperature is still rising. So the model you were asking about appears to be incorrect. That model was suggesting an overall reduction in reflectance due to decreased cloud cover. But while cloud cover seems to be decreasing (after an increase some years ago) nevertheless overall reflectance is on the rise, and so is the temperature.

This is just a superficial search so far. I can dig deeper if you're interested.

EDIT: Digging into the IPCC paper I linked to indicates that the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is approximately 10 times that of solar irradiance.

[Icycle]

While Gore's recomndations are noble, a lot of them are not practical right now. I really cant go into them line by line, Im not a scientist or pretend to understand everything. But what I do know is there is something that we as humans do that contributes to global warming and while we might not be able to change things that are natural changes to the Earth, there is certainly more than enough things that we can do to change what we have done and continue to do.

I'm not sure I agree that Al Gore's recommendations are impractical. If they were passed into law, they could be effectively implemented and would have the desired effect of reducing America's carbon dioxide emissions.

I will say that passing Gore's recommendations as he presented them is politically infeasible right now. While a majority of Americans want to see action taken to combat climate change*, there are powerful special interests who would like to block action on climate change. It's possible the 2008 election might shift things in Washington, but until then, I doubt any thing even close to Gore's recommendations will make it through Congress.

----
* A survey by MIT released in October 2006, found that almost 75% of Americans want the government to do more to deal with global warming, and individuals were willing to spend their own money to help.

[maniactickler]

The bottom line for me on this matter is, until theres solid proof by all scientists and not just educated opinions by some that man is a large factor in global warming, then i will not support funding, or any candidate who makes it his main agenda in an election. i personally think man might be responsible for 5 or 10 percent tops. to think anymore than that is ridiculous in my mind. as i said before, man couldnt destroy this planet if we tried. too many other factors involved. ive heard one volcanic eruption can do more to effect the globe than the entire planet of man could for years and years. we've had our share of volcanic eruptions on this planet and we are still here. im sure we can handle a few aerosol cans and exhaust fumes.

[Icycle]

The bottom line for me on this matter is, until theres solid proof by all scientists and not just educated opinions by some that man is a large factor in global warming, then i will not support funding, or any candidate who makes it his main agenda in an election.

You are not alone in your disbelief of anthropogenic global warming. There is a significant, but vocal minority of Americans (and a significantly smaller percantage of non-Americans) who agree with you.

Maniac, I am honestly curious what you would consider to be solid proof by all scientists? Does that mean that there are simply no more dissenting opinions in the media? Or does it mean that there is solid, tangible evidence that you personally can see and feel, rather than numbers, charts, and computer models?

i personally think man might be responsible for 5 or 10 percent tops. to think anymore than that is ridiculous in my mind. as i said before, man couldnt destroy this planet if we tried. too many other factors involved. ive heard one volcanic eruption can do more to effect the globe than the entire planet of man could for years and years. we've had our share of volcanic eruptions on this planet and we are still here. im sure we can handle a few aerosol cans and exhaust fumes.

Based on this, it sounds to me like like one of the primary reasons you don't believe that global warming is caused by man, is that it simply feels impossible that man could in any way permanetly and negatively alter the way the Earth works. We are so small and so few, and the Earth is enormous and as last through billions of years of other species without apparent harm. That man could do any harm violates common sense!

Sometimes common sense is wrong. Common sense says a flea on the back of an elephant can do no harm to the elephant. How could it? The flea is billions of times smaller than the elephant. It's jaws can barely penetrate the elephants skin. But if that flea happens to be carrying the plague, a single bite by the flea can kill elephant.

In the case of human caused global warming, even though common sense tells you it should not be possible, if the entire scientific community assures that it is not only possible, but it is actually happening right now, and our actions as humans will greatly determine how bad it will get it, you may want to consider believing them. Sometimes common sense has to change.

[maniactickler]

You are not alone in your disbelief of anthropogenic global warming. There is a significant, but vocal minority of Americans (and a significantly smaller percantage of non-Americans) who agree with you.

Maniac, I am honestly curious what you would consider to be solid proof by all scientists? Does that mean that there are simply no more dissenting opinions in the media? Or does it mean that there is solid, tangible evidence that you personally can see and feel, rather than numbers, charts, and computer models?



Based on this, it sounds to me like like one of the primary reasons you don't believe that global warming is caused by man, is that it simply feels impossible that man could in any way permanetly and negatively alter the way the Earth works. We are so small and so few, and the Earth is enormous and as last through billions of years of other species without apparent harm. That man could do any harm violates common sense!

Sometimes common sense is wrong. Common sense says a flea on the back of an elephant can do no harm to the elephant. How could it? The flea is billions of times smaller than the elephant. It's jaws can barely penetrate the elephants skin. But if that flea happens to be carrying the plague, a single bite by the flea can kill elephant.

In the case of human caused global warming, even though common sense tells you it should not be possible, if the entire scientific community assures that it is not only possible, but it is actually happening right now, and our actions as humans will greatly determine how bad it will get it, you may want to consider believing them. Sometimes common sense has to change.


If the ENTIRE sciectific community agreed that its happening, then i might change my mind. but even with that, the smartest scientists can still be wrong, so id probably still be skeptical.

[kurchatovium]

Kurch, there seems to be some data on that, but the studies don't go back very far. We couldn't make truly systematic surveys of global cloud cover until we had a good network of global weather satellites.

I've had time for only a cursory search so far, but I have found something of interest. It's a letter from the Journal Eos, discussing the fact that global temperatures are rising while the Earth's albedo (reflectance, though you probably already know that) is also increasing. The letter mentions the following:

"The most up-to-date cloud data, released in August 2005 from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), a careful compilation of cloud observations covering the entire Earth from a range of meteorological satellites, reveal that the explanation of this seeming anomaly lies primarily in a redistribution of the clouds. Whereas low clouds have decreased during the most recent years, high clouds have increased to a larger extent, leading to both an increase in cloud amount (higher albedo) and an increased trapping of infrared radiation by clouds (increased heating)."

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a note in one of their FAQs : "Improved satellite data shows that a general trend of increasing cloud amount over both land and ocean since the early 1980s, seems to have reversed in the early 1990s, and total cloud amount of land and ocean now appears to be decreasing. However, there are several studies that suggest regional cloudiness, perhaps especially in the thick precipitating clouds has increased over the 20th century."

It appears that overall the earth's cloud cover may be decreasing at the moment, but that actually the earth's reflectiveness or albedo is increasing. Yet despite the increase in albedo the earth's temperature is still rising. So the model you were asking about appears to be incorrect. That model was suggesting an overall reduction in reflectance due to decreased cloud cover. But while cloud cover seems to be decreasing (after an increase some years ago) nevertheless overall reflectance is on the rise, and so is the temperature.

This is just a superficial search so far. I can dig deeper if you're interested.

EDIT: Digging into the IPCC paper I linked to indicates that the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is approximately 10 times that of solar irradiance.

Thanks Redmage. :D Whenever you have time I would be interested in knowing as much as I can. If you like I can post some links to as I find them. Atmospheric science is indeed an interesting field. :D

I think part of the increase in albedo I believe is due to Global Dimming a phenomenon also associated with pollution, ironically often with fossil fuel burning. So though perhaps there maybe fewer clouds they may have a higher albedo. A brief summary of Global Dimming is below:

Fossil fuel use, as well as producing greenhouse gases, creates other by-products. These by-products are also pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide, soot, and ash. These pollutants however, also change the properties of clouds.

Clouds are formed when water droplets are seeded by air-borne particles, such as pollen. Polluted air results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflective. More of the sun’s heat and energy is therefore reflected back into space.

This reduction of heat reaching the earth is known as Global Dimming.

It seems Global Dmming may have actually masked effects of Global Warming though it does seem the warming part is winning now. This may be due in part to many regulations regarding aerosols and high sulphur fuels. It does seem from the info you have that there is also a complex interplay between lower and higher clouds. In the case of Dimming and Warming these are both pollution effects so clearly we need to know more about how we (man) effect the enviroment.

[Iggy pop]

Al Gore uses more energy from coal in a month than most households use in one year. Al Gore still travels on private jets. Al gore has an invested interest in selling the politics of fear and doomsday scenarios. He owns FOR PROFIT investment and mangagement company for alternative energies.

So for these reasons, I do not listen to Al Gore when it comes to his views on climate change.

[Robace252]

Al Gore uses more energy from coal in a month than most households use in one year. Al Gore still travels on private jets. Al gore has an invested interest in selling the politics of fear and doomsday scenarios. He owns FOR PROFIT investment and mangagement company for alternative energies.

So for these reasons, I do not listen to Al Gore when it comes to his views on climate change.
In fairness Iggy, those who talk about the danger of terrorists and terrorism have a large vested interest in the military and the companies that create, develop and manufacture weapons. When those people tell you that terrorism is a danger do you also also not listen to their views?

Just a question, I cant quite remember where you stand. Either way it is your opinion and Im not going to say your wrong, just giving you food for thought.

Rob

[Iggy pop]

In fairness Iggy, those who talk about the danger of terrorists and terrorism have a large vested interest in the military and the companies that create, develop and manufacture weapons. When those people tell you that terrorism is a danger do you also also not listen to their views?

Just a question, I cant quite remember where you stand. Either way it is your opinion and Im not going to say your wrong, just giving you food for thought.

Rob

That is more than a fair question, Rob. If a company is lobbying for more money being spent on terrorism because they know they will get a share of that money, then I would question it. Just like I question Bell Helicopter's lobbying efforts for intervention into Colombia in the 1990s. Just like I would question a study produced by R.J Reynolds that says second hand smoke is not dangerous. Just like I would question scientists funded by Exxon that say Global warming is not a threat.

If Al Gore really believed this was a problem then why is he flying on private jets? Why is he using more coal energy in month than the average family uses in a year? That really makes me wonder.

As for Global warming itself, I would have to say that I agree that it occurs. I do believe that earth does warm and cool in cycles, but I also believe that is highly possible that CO2 emission is have an effect on the latest warming trend. Then again the average tempeture of the earth has only warmed 1.3 degrees F since 1850.

[Mastertank1]

for human population. I think Redmage mentioned it first (BTW, thanks for directing me to those links, Redmage!).
This is a subject that I've been interested in for a couple of decades now. In that time I've seen estimates running from a high end of 12 Trillion (yes, trillion!) to a low end of just under 2 billion, or less than one third of what we have right now.
Now, the guys who said 12 trillion were fudging the numbers drastically; they were assuming direct conversion of every calorie of sunlight energy falling on the earth into human consumables at 100% efficiency with none of the many factors that make that impossible given any consideration.
If the ones who said 2 billion are right, we are already in deep, deep trouble, because that would mean that we already have over three times as many people as the world can sustain, long term.
That in turn means that sooner or later, the population will be cut back to a sustainable level. There are two ways that can happen; decrease the birth rate or increase the death rate.
The opposition of several of the world's major religions makes it a practical impossibility to decrease worldwide birthrates. The impending abrupt climate change may cause enough deaths to leave us with a sustainable population in the aftermath; but if we do nothing to try to mitigate that climate change, it may leave us with a population so decreased and scattered that the survivors will not be able to sustain a technological civilazation.
If technological civilization disdappears, even a couple hundred million people worldwide might not be sustainable. There might be further diebacks, leaving a primitive society with about 20 to 30 million people in the world. That's a very negative scenario, but it is far from worst case.

To those who insist that man cannot do anything that will effect the entire planet; pleae, follow me through some simple math.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that every person in the world, as an AVERAGE, produces only one pound of free carbon per day. I believe the actual figure is far higher, I'm sure someone can say what it really is, but to keep the math simple call it one pound.
There are nearly 7 billion people in the world, but to keep it simple lets say 6 billion. That's 6,000,000,000 pounds, which is 3 MILLION TONS of carbon every single day, being added to the atmosphere. Multiply that by 365 days in a year. In the course of a year, humans add over ONE BILLION TONS of free carbon to the atmosphere.
Bear in mind that this is a deliberate underestimate because I purposely used figures that were too low to keep the math simple. Do you really think that throwing well over a billion tons of carbon into the air every year is too little to have any effect?
I believe that the root of the problem is that there are just too many people on the world for the world to support indefinitely.
To that problem, I do not see any solution that will work in the real world. I think that the superstitions (most of you call them religions) of the human race will doom us to near extinction within the lifetime of my generation's grandchildren at the very latest, and probably much sooner than that.

[Iggy pop]

Here is text from 1975 Newsweek article talking about global cooling. Scientist predicted that global cooling would lead to famines and disaster.

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weath