As we close another warm year where average world temperatures are up as much as 1 degree Fahrenheit we must consider the path forward in stopping or dealing with the results of “Climate Change” (Global Warming)

Questions for the debate:

1. Is climate change totally man made or is the jury still out? Are there other historical periods of similar or greater warming that cannot be blamed on greenhouse gasses?

2. If “greenhouse gasses” are the culprits for Climate Change can we reduce world emissions enough to make a difference without reductions by the developing world including China and India?


3. Should the US do whatever it takes, even at a cost of 400 billion, to reduce emissions or should we use the money to prepare for the inevitable?

1. Is climate change totally man made or is the jury still out? Are there other historical periods of similar or greater warming that cannot be blamed on greenhouse gasses?

Well, to an extent the jury is still out on it, but most everyone that orbits the concept of global warming points to emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use, and to me from reading on various subjects related cant really think of anything else that would be causing the warming. I know one degree does not sound like a whole lot to a great many people, but you have to think of the amount of energy required to "warm" the planet in total by one degree, that is a whole lot of energy relatively speaking. To look at the earth from what science knows about it, its past and everything is another aspect really that allows for the concept of global warming to exist. I mean I could rant about natural laws, or the idea that I don’t think any stars composed primarily of the element Fe seem to exist, but I don’t think it would help.

2. If “greenhouse gasses” are the culprits for Climate Change can we reduce world emissions enough to make a difference without reductions by the developing world including China and India?

I think the world could, its if we want to move in that direction. I think America and Australia are still the only two nations not on the Kyoto protocols, which I find funny. It is a global issue and it will take the global community to combat it, not just one nation or even a group of them. I think ultimately it just comes down to the idea that of course in light of a constantly growing human population combined with our current technology its simply just not healthy overall for the environment in any lasting terms, not just of course all the other life forms going extinct in rates tied to our growth. When there is an earthquake, it seems people can work together, I don’t find this any different, but if we let it get to the point of being like an earthquake, I don’t know if people could really do anything at that point.

3. Should the US do whatever it takes, even at a cost of 400 billion, to reduce emissions or should we use the money to prepare for the inevitable?

It would be silly for just the U.S to do this alone, though with the power we have we are probably in a better place to spearhead such then any other nation overall. If we put our heads to it, in not only changes to daily routines but simply energy sources and related technology, I think collectively the world could drastically cut the amount of fossil fuel use in a decade easy. Again the idea being that if global warming continues, the impact it will hold will be far more damaging then any attempts now to stop it.

. Is climate change totally man made or is the jury still out? Are there other historical periods of similar or greater warming that cannot be blamed on greenhouse gasses?

I think the jury is still out fits best here, but it stands to reason that releasing tons and tons of energy into the atmosphere that was previously stored up is likely to have some consequences.

2.If “greenhouse gasses” are the culprits for Climate Change can we reduce world emissions enough to make a difference without reductions by the developing world including China and India?

Not likely while very large nations are in the process of development. Even if all of Europe and the US shut down all carbon emmissions today China and India, with their billions of people will compensate in the course of a few years. I remember reading somewhere that the number of new automobiles in China was growing something along the lines of 10,000 a month. No, gordo, China and India are actually exempt from the Kyoto protocols.

3.Should the US do whatever it takes, even at a cost of 400 billion, to reduce emissions or should we use the money to prepare for the inevitable?

This is a bit of an excluded middle, but I must say that if 400 billion would solve the problem, it would be money much better spent than wars and troop placement in the middle east (about the same cost). If we placed all the money we're investing into countering Iran, for instance, and instead invested it in new energy sources Iran would cease to be a problem, in great part because their primary source of cash would be gone.

Instead of looking only to reduce emissions, we could also focus on a cost effective way to trap and containing the ones already out there. That would solve much of the problem.

This is a wiki link, seems to have solid citations though so I hope its up to date or honest.

"The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The United States is as of 2005 the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.[39]"

"Nonetheless, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has refused to ratify the Agreement and has argued that the protocol would cost Australians jobs,[11"

Sorry, bad at quotes still.

Here is China and India.

"India signed and ratified the Protocol in August, 2002. Since India is exempted from the framework of the treaty, it is expected to gain from the protocol in terms of transfer of technology and related foreign investments. At the G-8 meeting in June 2005, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pointed out that the per-capita emission rates of the developing countries are a tiny fraction of those in the developed world. Following the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, India maintains that the major responsibility of curbing emission rests with the developed countries, which have accumulated emissions over a long period of time."

To break for a second I know that the Kyoto can be look upon in a bad light because its not as hard on developing nations, which is something I am sure can be worked out, save the world is not really for power sharing in any regard.

"China insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. Because China has emplaced population control measures while maintaining low emissions per capita, it claims it should therefore in both the above aspects be considered a contributor to the world environment. China considers the criticism of its energy policy unjust.[28] China is currently the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and is expected to become the largest by 2030.[29]"

While being in second place, china I think uses less that half of what we consume over a larger population, plus china is in the midst of a boom and I doubt its government wants to give that up. China though does comply at least with Kyoto at some level during this boom.

And now the link itself!

Wiki on Kyoto

Actually the developing nations like China and India are exempt from the requirement to reduce emissions. China is increasing emmisiions at a rate that will far surpass anything the rest of the world could do bay far.




Yes it is significant but there is evidence that the world warmed far more (about 7 deg F) in the Medieval Warm Period between 900-1200 AD. And it is obvious that CO2 had nothing to do with this. The popular MANN hocky stick plot has been shown to be either a mistake or an outright fraud.



Yes and here is the situation. China will complete an average of one new big power plant a week going forward totaling over 500. Not one is going to deal with CO2 emissions and nearly all are coal fired. Worse yet dozens of illegal (not gov approved) plants are being build because some sectors of China just cannot wait for gov approval.

As one scientist puts it “over the 60 year life span of the Chinese plants they will introduce into the atmosphere about as much CO2 as was released by ALL the coal burned since the dawn of the industrial revolution”





No this would be our cost to meet (our) reduction requirement while others like China swamp any reductions over time. The net result is that if CO2 really is the cause the current reductions (our cost 400 billion) would do little if anything. IMO lets put the money aside for dealing with the consequences of the warming that is almost certain to happen.

1. Of course climate change is not "totally man made". The climate has been changing for 5 billion years. The earth has gone through massive changes in atmospheric composition and geography during that time, the vast majority of which occurred before Homo sapiens ever set foot on this planet. The issue is what impact is "man" making on the climate. Certainly the impact is not "zero". However, what is debatable is what impact man is responsible for and what the net impact of that influence may be. And that is highly debatable. CO2 is a natural component of our atmosphere and an essential component in the photosynthesis process which is required for the Oxygen that we breath to survive. The "greenhouse" model is simplistic. The atmosphere and it's interaction with the oceans, the sun, and terrain/plant life is a bit more complex than a "greenhouse". But, that's the model that the "majority" of scientists are wrapping their opinions around, rightly or wrongly, and we know that they are the high priests, witch doctors, and soothsayers of the modern age; thus they cannot possibly be brought into question.

2. To reduce CO2 to "natural levels", the entire population of man would have to cease conducting any activity that creates CO2 or reduces it's transformation via natural processes such as photosynthesis. We'd all have to go back to the stone age then and not even burn fuel for heating, cooking, etc. Human breathing causes CO2 also, and given the amount of hot air generated by this debate, many leading environmentalists could be labeled as "polluters" due to their heated exhalations. The bottom line is that if you got rid of people, man's impact on the climate would be "zero". That's fantasy. Human civilization isn't going to go in that direction no matter how loudly una-bomber inspirer Albert Gore Jr. bellows his warnings that the sky is falling. But, this is clearly an issue that is more political than scientific. Data has been, to coin the phrase popular among Bush critics when it comes to Iraq intelligence, "cherry picked" to show only the conclusions that the man-made global warming crowd have already decided upon.

3. Should the US spend $400B to reduce emissions? Well, that seems to be the one track mission of the global warming crowd and misguided and selective efforts such as the "Kyoto treaty" which was never enforced by Clinton in spite of the fact he promoted it. Why should the US adopt draconian standards that would devastate our economy when polluting countries such as India and China ignore them? On the other hand, if the initiative gave the US an economic and technological advantage over Europe and Asia... and could make us more money and make us more prosperous, then the hype might be well worth it. In that case, I'd be more sympathetic to the global warming theologians.

And why the single focus on "reduced emissions" in the first place? If you put humans in a sealed chamber, the CO2 generated by the breathing will eventually poison the humans.... unless the air is filtered or the CO2 managed. Assuming for a moment that CO2 concentrations, in these miniscule concentrations is hazardous, instead of beating up on the industrialized world, why not come up with more effective ways to "manage" these gasses? Wouldn't planting more foliage, which converts CO2 into O2 and several other substances work in that direction?

If it's not possible, I say start planning for the inevitable instead of turning back the clock. The CO2 levels have risen and dropped throughout history. Clearly there is an underlying process which is well outside of the impact of man.

Historical temperature data

It's arrogant to think that "man has caused the climate to change" when the norm is a dynamic climate that changes by itself whether we like it or not.

On the other hand, if it's within our power to manage CO2, why not do it? As long as it doesn't take us back to the stone age or require a substantial number of humans to stop breathing.

Obviously this is a debate which inspires view which tend towards the extremes. Yet the clear value of scientific consensus cannot be underestimated, and cannot be dismissed. If this debate is to occur, we need people who are prepared to look at the data, not dismiss it as 'theology', and who are prepared to admit that experts in the field might know more about the specifics than they do.

Pretending the various overlapping fields which have interest in global warming across the world are part of some vast conspiracy is not logical. How would this conspiracy occur in separate universities in separate countries around the world? Why would such a conspiracy exist?

If I may be so bold, to label those who accept the logical, reasonable scientific majoritarian opinion as superstition, or theology, and its advocates as soothsayers is not reasonable, any more than referring to Al Gore's efforts to bring this issue to national attention; "una-bomber inspirer Albert Gore Jr. bellows his warnings that the sky is falling."


The globe is a dynamic system, that is correct, and it changes on its own over time as well, but to use that as an argument that Global Warming must be false is akin to saying that because people all die naturally eventually, it is therefore impossible to kill them. A dynamic system means that it can be changed by changes in the structure of support and environment which creates it, that’s all it means. A dynamic system responds to the world around it. If anything the very dynamism of the global climate is evidence that it can be changes by alterations in its structural foundations, be they natural or artificial changes.

Equally, it is a logical error to say that the 'greenhouse' model of global warming is inaccurate because the globe is more complex than a greenhouse. This is true but I do not believe any scientists have ever claimed otherwise. The system of dynamic change of heat entry and escape into the global atmosphere can be altered by the composition of gasses in the atmosphere, causing excess heat retention. saying 'its complex' is not an argument against it, at best it is an argument that it is complex.


The fact that massive amounts of CO2 are being released into the atmosphere by human activity is not debatable. So the question then becomes, do you believe that this massive amount of CO2 can have an effect on the environment? Well, again we turn to the very dynamism of the earth's climate for evidence. Every time in our past CO2 has increased due to natural factors, the climate has changed, sometimes precipitously. Yet unless the planet can tell the difference between CO2 produced naturally and artificially, it is clear that this gas production can and had had an effect in our past.

So if the above is fact, what is there left to dispute? Of course man has had an impact on the environment, and of course Global warming is largely the result of human activity. To claim otherwise is essentially to maintain that the rapid climactic changes already underway on earth, which in the past have always been the result of differing CO2 levels, are this time only, a complete coincidence and have nothing at all to do with artificially high CO2 levels. Is that reasonable?


The Kyoto issue I won't get into. I have not read the Kyoto accord, and try not to speak on things I know only superficial information about.

It is not at all arrogant to think that man has caused climate change; in fact it is arrogant to assume that everything we have done to this world in the last 100 years has not had a profound effect. Man has shown himself adept at affecting the entire environment of the earth in other situations, and has made significant effects on far less fragile planetary systems, so why is it so difficult for some people to consider that it might happen with the atmosphere?

Worse, why is it necessary for those who disbelieve to represent the majority and their hard evidence as cultists, soothsayers and fanatics? How does that in any way further the debate?

"The Medieval Climate Anomaly: Between roughly 900 and 1300 AD, evidence suggests Europe, Greenland and Asia experienced relative warmth. While historical accounts and other evidence document the warmth that occurred in some regions, the geographical extent, magnitude and timing of the warmth during this period is uncertain (NRC, 2006). The American West experienced very dry conditions around this time.

The Little Ice Age: A wide variety of evidence supports the global existence of a "Little Ice Age" (this was not a true "ice age" since major ice sheets did not develop) between about 1500 and 1850 (NRC, 2006). Average temperatures were possibly up to 2ºF colder than today, but varied by region."

EPA link, beware...

Ifs its physical more or less science used properly can come to understand it, just as in the instance lordhelmet provided by drilling for ice cores, this is what makes science cool, it has to prove things empirically, now if we can just get that standard going for more institutions in life...

The only problem I have with this is current graphs show spikes in CO2, amounts of CO2 that have not existed previously at such levels, and will only continue to rise simply because again more and more consumption of fossil fuels.

"Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.["

Another link on the issue

Here is a basic link on the issue, its point and click so it might be fun to some.

Just an overview.

"The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation."

Another link on global warming.

I found this one kind of odd, but its worth a read.

What does an airplane have to do with global warming?

Last link, its a good read and a strong counter.

Global Warming (now called climate change) is an undisputable fact. What is not yet completely clear is weather CO2 from human activity is the cause. And I dispute your statement that warming is always associated by CO2. This was not the case in the Medieval Warm period. As you say the system is complex and, we must remember, is effected by the SUN as much or more as anything we can do.

We think the Warm Period had temps. At 7 deg F higher than today. More than we expect this century from “greenhouse gasses” even if they are the sole cause which is unlikely. The “hockey Stick is a fraud and I have read (few but not 0) interviews with “old timers” in atmospheric science who think CO2 (and Methane) are not the prime movers in climate change.

The issue is, Do we spend 400 billion essentially for nothing since our reduction is not going to matter as China and others increase emissions or do we spend the money dealing with the consequences.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/...ot-support.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

How can you say that global warming is "largely" the result of human activity when you can't isolate the normal CO2/temperature fluctuations which have occurred with regularity every 100,000 years or so?

I never said man had no impact. I said that impact of man could not be reliably isolated from the underlying process. That's a big difference.

If you want to eliminate the impact of man, you have to eliminate man or eliminate the actions of man to heat, cool, cook, produce energy, transport himself, etc.. Is that reasonable?

I think not.



You've made several debatable statements in this section.

1. Man has made a "profound" effect on the world. That's subjective. Again, if you can't isolate the underlying process of climate change (which certainly exists), then you can't measure the delta attributable by man. And since you can't measure the delta, you have no way of knowing if this delta is "profound", "moderate" or "insignificant".

2. You imply that the climate is a "fragile system". On what basis do you make this assertion? The atmosphere is nearly 100 miles thick across the globe which is 70% water covered. The percentage that man occupies is a very small percentage of the overall global surface. The weather systems, volcanic activity, ocean systems, currents, cyclical events such as El Nino, the heating (and cooling) variations induced by the sun's fluctuations (which are measurable), plate tectonics, earthquakes, etc, are absolutely dominant over the impact of man. If a butterfly hits a locomotive, the impact of that insect on the velocity of the train is NOT zero. But it's hardly a dominant variable.

3. The majority as you put is represents the "minority" of the scientific community at large. Atmospheric science is one branch of one sub-specialty of science. It's like saying the majority of French pastry chefs believe in a cooking theory which should dictate how and what the rest of the world eats. Furthermore, the lack of hard evidence (which you claim exists, but actually does not) has reduced this debate to theology. Facts have been replaced by faith. Hard evidence? It's unfortunately lacking. Healthy skepticism is treated as heretical and non-believers are regular recipients of character assassination, social outcast, or worse. These are the actions of fanatics and zealots, not open minded fact-based scientists. I still think that this aspect was best covered by author Michael Crichton in his essay on this subject.

Michael Crichton essay

1. Is climate change totally man made or is the jury still out? Are there other historical periods of similar or greater warming that cannot be blamed on greenhouse gasses?

I’m not a scientist, but I think climate change is due to many factors, of which man is a significant one. I defer to those more intelligent than I, such as the scientists at NOAA, NASA, the National Academy of Sciences and many other scientific organizations.

Not only that, logic tells me that man has had a profound effect on the earth. Logic tells me (that and walking across a large parking lot in July) that paving over the world has to have an effect on the atmosphere. Logic tells me that filth spewed into the atmosphere and our oceans can’t be a good thing. Logic also tells me that hundreds of years of filth pumped into the air has to have an effect. Logic tells me deforesting the largest rainforest in the world is not a smart thing to do. But, hey, what does logic have to do with politics?

Scientists have also had to defend their work by those who skew their statistics in order to make the point that global warming really isn’t happening.

2. If “greenhouse gasses” are the culprits for Climate Change can we reduce world emissions enough to make a difference without reductions by the developing world including China and India?

There is a tipping point; one that scientists say we are very near, after which the environmental changes become irreversible. Of course, those global warming Alfred E. Newmans say that if we don’t know when it’s going to happen, why worry? Well, shoot, if you’re driving 120 mph and approaching a blind curve, just because you don’t see anything in front of you, it doesn’t mean you speed up!

Just one for-instance: Siberia’s frozen peat bogs are thawing, with a potential to release billions of tons of methane gas into the air. We’re talking decades, not centuries, here. You can’t refreeze thousands of square miles of permafrost.

Each seemingly small change will leads to other changes (for example, destruction of the coral reefs).

3. Should the US do whatever it takes, even at a cost of 400 billion, to reduce emissions or should we use the money to prepare for the inevitable?

I think the US should be a responsible participant and custodian of the earth. If we screw it up, we ought to be willing to do our part to fix it, or at least vow not to screw it up so bad in the future (like reducing emissions, seriously exploring alternative ways to generate energy, etc.). Granted, that isn’t important to some people, who don’t view anything that exceeds their own personal lifespan as being anything to worry about.

I get so tired of the right using the “Medieval Warm Period” and China as reasons not to be concerned about Global Warming. As for the MWP:



And as for China, since when does any conservative give a rat’s butt about China if it doesn’t affect them? And since they debunk global warming, obviously, China’s gross pollution doesn’t affect them. The US puts more CO2 in the air than both China and India combined! So, the US’ refusal to do anything because China doesn’t is a dumb argument.

I found a great analogy to this. It’s like the US is the fattest man at the table, and realizing the food is running out, continues to eat more than anyone else while demanding the skinnier people eat less. Justifying the US’ intransigence by invoking developing countries like China and India only hurts our cause when China and India become eligible for the same limitations set by Kyoto. Why should they comply when the biggest polluter (us) will not? (2012 isn't that far away)

I've only seen this commercial twice. I wonder if it is considered too "shocking" for Americans' delicate sensibilities? I found it to be a powerful statement. YouTube (I hope this link works)

CO2 is "filth"?? It's what comes out of your mouth when you exhale. It's a "natural" substance. It's also essential for life and for the creation of oxygen.

What do volcanoes put into the atmosphere when they erupt? Should we regulate them too? Or should only American volcanoes be targeted?

China and India are growing at a faster rate than the US and in an environment of nearly ZERO environmental regulation. They pour raw sewage and industrial wastes into their water and air. You want to see filth? Visit India and/or China. You'll see it and you'll smell it. You'll probably even taste it.

What does logic have to do with politics? Nothing. But what does politics have to do with science? Too much. That's the problem in the "global warming" debate.

Well, if subjective answers are not it, how can you surmise that humanity would have to go back to the stone age in order to not alter the environment? We somehow are able to generate manageable systems via understanding, I don’t think this one will or can only escape this.

In response to item one, I have posted many links that show a strong correlations between CO2 and climate change, sure it is not 100% yet but that does not mean the science behind it is unsound. Most every gauge of CO2 shows an increase of CO2 following the industrial revolution of nearly 90 ppm, more CO2 then can be quantified now in existence then in nearly 10,000 years previous.

In response to item two, none of those issues or variable in respects to our environment can have the amount of greenhouse gas being released into the environment traced to them for one, and on aspects of how fragile our system is, do you know how fragile it is or is it your subjective perception again of the issue you would push as truth over someone else’s views you view as subjective.

In response to item number three. This is why peer review exists and works, and why its a scientific minority in all regards that doubt the scientific majority alarming over global warming and its ties to humans. Also on that note, I don’t think someone whom has specialized in say environmental science is going to work as a mechanical engineer or vice versa, to be a univesalist like Einstein is not something every scientist is, in fact universalists don’t even exist really in science, something of a problem to me yes because it seems you could probably tie it all together if you wanted to, but nope, you have the ability to be a geochemist if you want, or a geophysicist and so forth and so on, its like trying to say if all engineers are just engineers, nope, there is a difference between a nuclear engineer and a mechanical engineer, its called specialization, and last time I checked Einstein was noted for math and physics, not say geology or biology.

Again, point being is humans are the ones producing the spike in CO2 concentration, this in turn is going to have an effect. Call it what you want and again science does not claim to know how things will turn out. The basic premise of global warming is very simple though, the higher the concentration of CO2 or greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more energy from the sun being kept in our system. The more energy in our system can only mean a change to it, its basic, very basic. So basically what this is to mean is just that, if we as a specie continue to produce and release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, we are going to slowly but surely change the earth. How will the carbon cycle react to so much carbon, how will the oceans deal with it, which ties into the atmosphere, all of which overall ties into making up the environment of the earth? The earth currently is in a sort of equilibrium, never going to much in one direction or the other, but then again the earth has never had billions of people producing CO2 in such heavy amounts along with other acts such as deforestation, which we will need to eat up all that CO2.

Fossil fuels are not the only avenue towards survivability anyways, and you would be surprised at the lengths such companies go through to spread disinformation about global warming and related causes.

Two problems. There is great uncertainty in the data and as MC pointed out publications such as Scientific American are very biased on the issue. And second the “data” for 10,000 years, even if correct, cannot explain the Medevil Warm period .. The reality is the jusry is still out and deceners on the subject do NOT get a fair hearing in the scientific press.



TRUE Gordo but the question unanswered is HOW MUCH does it effect global temperatures? If it is only .1 deg F every 100 years this is far different than 3 deg F or more.

From article: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/sp...es_quote04.html


In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist. -- http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy

Sounds pretty darned filthy to me.


Now you’re just being asinine.

And I guess you didn’t bother to read what I said about China and India. Yes, they are polluting at a rapid rate. Do I think that’s good? No. Do I think it’s any better that we pollute the same amount, with all our “regulations”? No.

That's about the only thing you and I agree on.

And are you willing to spend 400 billion to reduce OUR CO2 emissions when even IF this conjecture is true the output of China will more than offset anything we or the world could do?

I am not.

That's a playground argument. "If Billy doesn't have to, I ain't gonna."

The difference between you and I is that I respect the environment I live in, and even though I don't have to worry about what misery I might be handing down to my children (cuz I don't have any) or successive generations, I'm willing to look at other options, and encourage environmental responsibility. The journal of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Maybe by our actions, we can encourage others to act as responsibly...or not.

First of CO2 is not “pollution”. It is a greenhouse gas and will raise global temperatures although we don’t know how much.

IMO 400 billion with literally no chance it will mean squat is more than a “playground argument” – it is a stupid waste of money with no result. If you feel strongly about it get together with all your friends and get taxed extra to pay for this dumb idea.

I will be willing to pay when 1. They prove that reducing CO2 will prevent climate change and 2. I know that if we spend 400 billion it won’t be for nothing.

And our actions will do little. China shows no interest in building anything but big coal fired plants. And did you ever wonder why a treaty ratified in 2003 has a “start date” for CO2 measurement of 1990? Let me give you a hint – we get the shaft and it is one of the reasons Bill C would never sign the stupid accord.

Have a nice day

A little food for thought excerpt from:
Time Magazine
Monday, Jun. 24, 1974
Another Ice Age?




I won't get fooled again.

1. Is climate change totally man made or is the jury still out? Are there other historical periods of similar or greater warming that cannot be blamed on greenhouse gasses?

Not only is the not jury still out, it would appear man the only reasonable verdict is that man is almost completely innocent.



From: We Just Gotta Do Something About CO2

2. If “greenhouse gasses” are the culprits for Climate Change can we reduce world emissions enough to make a difference without reductions by the developing world including China and India?

See above. No, we can't. If we completely reduced ALL manmade greenhouse gas emissions, it would only be about 1/2 of 1% of the greenhouse gas emmisions. A more realistic goal is probably 1/10 of that. So, we could realistically, through pretty drastic measures, only reduce 1/10 of 1/2% of the greenouse gas emissions. How much difference would that probably make?

3. Should the US do whatever it takes, even at a cost of 400 billion, to reduce emissions or should we use the money to prepare for the inevitable?

Given the above, pretty much any money spent on the problem on this end is essentially wasted. I would think, in general, environmentalists would be against excess waste, wouldn't they?

Another major point to consider, from the same article (referring specifically to CO2, which is primarily what is usually targeted by environmental groups):



So, were CO2 the problem, the answer is pretty simple. Stop burning things. You burn less, you emit less CO2. Why waste time and effort on cleanup when conservation is the answer.

Further point to consider. We live in a symbiotic system. We breathe in oxygen, and we breathe out CO2. Plants do the opposite, using CO2 and emitting oxygen. So, if you want less CO2 in the air, the logical thing to do from a purely environmental perspective would be to stop removing those things that utilize the CO2. Primarily, where are they located? The Amazon rain forest. The best thing to do for CO2 reduction would be to immediately stop the deforestation of the rain forest. How come you never hear that being proposed?

Further indication of the lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of the problem,



from An Incovenient Truth: SOS from Al Gore

So, we're working on the completely wrong end of the problem, spending resources, effort, and money where the problem is smallest and where it is least likely to do any good.

A further source, for those that might find the above biased, that corroborates this situation, and is a direct response to the above article.

Global Warming.



A further note about global climate change. There was an article recently in the Dallas Morning News, discussing how this was the warmest year on record. It listed the top ten. Only 1 of them was recently (2001)...the others were back in the 50's and even more from the 30's. How much of today's emitters of greenhouse gases were around then? Clearly, there was a dropoff in temperature after those periods. Since the manmade emmissions of greenhouse gases has been on a steady increase during that period, how is this possible? Wouldn't temperatures have kept climbing since then? I have seen other studies stating the this century was the warmest since a few thousand years ago. Who was making all the pollution then? Again, this only makes sense in light of the above quotes, when the fact that anthropomorphic impact on greenhouse gases are essentially insignificant is taken into account.

See, the medieval warming period was geographically based and I am sorry occurred way before the industrial revolution.

Second, nothing really can account for the boom in CO2 concentration really save the amount we produce. Another aspect to it to look at is simply that, we rely that all of this is simply part of a "natural" cycle, but evidence as produced scientifically will not back this. Another aspect is this amount of CO2 we produce will be a growing constant, one year of modern day CO2 emissions may not be much to consider, but 20 years worth is. Another thing is what will 20 years of compounded and growing CO2 do to this system. I would think it be common sense to understand in any instance we are changing first of all the chemistry of the planet, which affects all sorts of issues, yes lets have high concentrations of Carbon in our oceans, sounds great to me.

Another aspect is the drive not only to lampoon global warming as nothing more then a liberal scheme to I guess destroy humanity is the drive to bash science unless its that small fraction of science not to sure about global warming, in that case those people are correct because they agree with you, not the majority though, no sir, just dumbos working for the liberals.

Science is not always perfect, but for the most part if something is not in line with the natural world, such as a hypothesis it will not last in science, it will go to the false pile, I would think this would be easy to see and not only that paramount when talking about as issue with such magnitude, yes science just wants to produce alarmism and false facts on such an issue really as an attempt at suicide Then again if you are a scientist that disagrees with global warming, even though a tiny fraction, they do happen to be correct, and most likely payed off by big oil or the republicans, that make statements like the polar bear population is actually booming, while its being put on the endangered species list, again just liberal alarmism, because you know science is code for liberal.

Yes, science is just biased, narrow minded, cares nothing for fact and just works to produce alarmism which will aid the liberals in destroying America... That’s all it is, after all to not think such might be to think wow, we are producing large amounts of CO2 into the system, over a long period of time relatively speaking with only the prospect of such growing actually, then we combine this with massive deforestation and other changes to the environment such as complete destruction of ecosystems, and at the end of they day all we can say is no way we could ever change the planet, no sir, and for science to say contrary surely means they are just some sort of religious cult working again for liberals, though for what goal no one can answer.

So I say yes, I do hope we continue to produce and produce, and I hope science is truly just brushed aside, because its just liberals that want to ban Jesus, I mean after all god would not allow global warming to occur would he? Then when things get bad, hopefully I wont be around for such for it will truly be horrible, I can come back from the dead because people do that and say hey, they told you so!

SO yes, all we need is twenty more years of the same plus, then scientists might be able to get more conclusive proof that adding gross amounts of CO2 to the environment is a bad thing, and maybe it was not worth all the gold and diamonds, then again, when we have a nuke war over the last oil spot, all that carbon in the atmosphere may turn to diamonds, it will rain diamonds I say!

This brings up another point which is the dramatic increase in methane production. Needless to say the fact that we live and eat millions of animals that also produce methane is an issue. Odd we here little about it.

That is why methane is increasing so significantly. One of the most serious aspects of human overpopulation is the concommittant increase in the atmospheric concentration of methane. 80% of methane generation is anthropogenic, that is due to humans, in its origin. 20% of anthropogenic methane is from fossil hydrocarbons. 80% of anthropogenic methane is biogenic in origin. One might think that increases in methane concentration would come from industrial sources. Instead four-fifths of the the methane increase comes from agriculture, agricultural waste by-products and from human refuse and waste products. Humans produce large amounts of methane simply by virtue of the fact that they exist in large numbers. It is an unavoidable product of their existence

http://www.buddycom.com/ecol/population/ch4.html

1. Is climate change totally man made or is the jury still out? Are there other historical periods of similar or greater warming that cannot be blamed on greenhouse gasses?


I can't say I'm terribly interested in wading into yet another Global Warming debate but I thought I'd mention a couple of logical/analytical fallacies in this article cited.

1. Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Note that most fossil fuel combustion is not from automobiles, it is from power generation and heating.

2. According to Houghton and Hackler, from 1850-2000 atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000. That means ~40% of additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere.

3. While it is true that the bulk of CO2 production is "natural", it is a disingenuous argument to say the reducing CO2 production won't make a difference. What matters is whether or not the CO2 can be extracted from the atmosphere at the rate it is being produced. Natural processes do extract atmospheric CO2 but they simply aren't keeping up. In other words, we've exceeded the threshold at which CO2 levels can remain stable.

And before anyone starts doing the whole Michael Crichton global warming-scientist conspiracy thing, I'd like them first to disprove why Idaho doesn't exist.

Oh, and you're not allowed to use "absurd" as a counter-argument.

I had a college roommate who did a paper on the environmental impact of the beef industry. Cows are definitely an environmental disaster. They take something like 10,000 times the resources to produce 1 lb of meat that chickens do (water, land devoted to feed, etc.).

I would add here that I am in fact an avid environmentalist...I think we should take much much much better care of our environment. However, as with most things, what we are doing about it is fairly absurd. When it comes to the environment, lots of people are willing to talk about it, many are all too willing to have others do something about it...but very very few people are willing to take the necessary steps themselves. If global warming is truly the problem, then perhaps reducing CO2 emissions isn't the answer, and we'd have a MUCH greater impact by eating less beef? Sounds pretty simple, but no one is willing to give up their beef, so we end up wasting time, money, and effort on something far far less likely to truly address the problem. Eating less beef would also have a positive impact on overall health, I'd bet, but why live longer if we're just ruining the planet anyway, eh? Humans, unfortunately, are basically idiots. Say...maybe it's all our hot air that's causing global warming? Prove me wrong! )

This is only true for the grain-fed beef industry. The grass-fed beef industry does not require any more resources in than what you get out -- it's a net zero energy cycle (well, except for the sun, of course). I do agree that methane as a digestive byproduct of cattle is more harmful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

1. Is climate change totally man made or is the jury still out? Are there other historical periods of similar or greater warming that cannot be blamed on greenhouse gasses?

Although most scientists do tend to agree that there seems to be an upward trend in global temperature, there are also many who disagree (incomplete list). However, even if the extrapolated temperature data is correct, most paleoclimatologists do not believe we are anywhere near the kind of high temperatures experienced between earlier ice ages. Here's some NASA charts and graphs showing long-term climate changes, and explaining why the jury is still out. There's also plenty of information explaining their points of view. Here are a few links: The Myth of Global Warming, Search Yahoo! for global warming myth

The "Myth of Global Warming" link above points to an article called the "Ice Age Cometh" citing many current global warming scientists who claimed in the 1970's that we were on the verge of one of the worst ice ages in history. They claimed that poor people were freezing to death worldwide; that the seas will soon shrink and kill fish due to higher saline concentrations; that the natural habitat of many animals would soon be consumed by glaciers; and much more gloom and doom. Remember that phase? I do. Their conclusion back in the 1970s was that the only way to fight the ice age was to stop pollution by becoming socialist and demonstrate against the war and the Republican party. Strange how global warming and impending ice ages seem to have almost the same call to action. Get it straight-- are the Republicans causing an ice age, or are they causing global warming? Did their policies in the 1970s make the globe colder, but after the Reagan years, they're now making the globe warmer? Obviously not. We had simply experienced a few years of severe winters and mild summers, so people were willing to believe an ice age was on the way, and the political activists capitalized on that fear, with plenty of scientific documentation. How can we be sure the same forces aren't at play today?

There's a ton of outright propaganda to discard, and a ton of possible science you have to wonder about because the scientists in question are political activists. But once you get to the real science, there's just no simple answer to whether or not we're really causing global warming, or even significantly contributing to it. The best evidence is that we are still emerging from an ice age, and that a certain amount of warming is thus expected. Whether or not we're warming more than expected is not upheld by the paleoclimatological record, but it is also not disproven.

2. If “greenhouse gasses” are the culprits for Climate Change can we reduce world emissions enough to make a difference without reductions by the developing world including China and India?

From the NASA link above,
What this is really saying is that all we really have is a statistical correllation and two working explanations: one that shows how increasing CO2 causes increases temperature, and another that shows how increasing temperature causes a global increase in CO2. How exactly these processes interact, and whether one dominates the other is unknown.

The second mechanism (more temperature produces more CO2) is not as well publicised as the first (more CO2 produces more temperature). The second mechanism has always been necessary to explain past incidents of global warming prior to human intervention, somewhat as follows: higher temperatures from projected sun heat lead to dying vegetation, therefore less CO2 conversion to O2 plus higher production of tree-rot gasses, ergo net increases in greenhouse gasses. Assuming the greenhouse effect now kicks in, greenhouse gasses lead to higher temps, higher temps lead to more greenhouse gasses, and everything spirals out of control, until the ice age kicks in, possibly as a result of localized cooling of more evaporated water, but who knows? Science isn't quite sure about the causes of ice ages, either.

Which of the two mechanisms is dominant is far from a resolved issue. We could be in a chicken-egg scenario, or the greenhouse effect may be dominant, or the greenhouse effect may simply be a minor contributor to a more complex system that marches on regardless of human pollution. Maybe we can influence the system to control the weather, maybe we cannot. We may never know for sure.

3. Should the US do whatever it takes, even at a cost of 400 billion, to reduce emissions or should we use the money to prepare for the inevitable?

This is a value judgement. It would be nice if real science were clearly on one side of the issue or the other, but it is not. Yes, the earth is probably experiencing a slight warming trend that could have dramatic consequences within a few generations if the conditions are indeed present, or might be normalization from the little ice age and nothing to worry about. Yes, there are some testable theories that explain how some human activities might be contributing to the current temperature change, but they certainly do not sufficiently explain past warming trends plotted by paleoclimatologists.

What course of action do you take when you can't be sure exactly what is happening?

I think it would be unwise to pump money into climatology think tanks that tend to serve little purpose other than stumping for one party or another, as happens all-too-frequently in Washington. Bush pumps money into evangelical faith-based initiatives that get him re-elected (didn't work too well in 2006), just like Clinton and Gore pumped money into environmental activism groups that helped them get re-elected (and shut down the federal government to force concessions from Congress). Why any honorable groups would allow themselves to be used as pawns of politicians, I cannot say.

Everywhere we can cut back on pollution, we should. No one really needs to appeal to global warming to make the case that pollution poisions the planet and needs to be curtailed, even at great financial expense. 400 billion? Not in tax money, but perhaps in profits from the biggest polluters who will need to find cleaner ways to stay in business if they don't want the EPA to close their doors.

Trying to actively increase or decrease global temperature, however, is an extremely risky proposition. Are the climatologists right today that we're headed toward global warming, or were they right in 1975 when we were on the brink of a devastating ice age? If we choose poorly, certain efforts to directly change global temperature will actually speed up climate change rather than slowing it down. I wouldn't support spending one red dime on efforts to directly increase or decrease global temperature; let's just clean up the environment and let mother nature do her own thing.

Pollution poisons America's natural resources, and excessive consumption depletes them. Government exists, in part, to manage scarce resources, and should take a more active role in shutting down companies that too crassly pollute or waste resources. When presented a rational case for that position devoid of any references to global warming or ice ages, many Republicans and Libertarians would join forces with Democrats and Greens to clean up America's act. I suggest honest environmentalists take a more reasonable view of climatology and find a more convincing argument for conservationism than the spectre of global warming or an impending ice age. Coming from the mouth of Internet Inventor Al Gore, it sounds to non-Democrats a lot like "the sky is falling."

1. Is climate change totally man made or is the jury still out? Are there other historical periods of similar or greater warming that cannot be blamed on greenhouse gasses?

1A: I don't know what else would be doing this change. The photos of the Earth at night tell a story of a planet that lit up over the course of a couple hundred years. Observing even a relatively small city like Colorado Springs tells another story about a species that learned how to go faster than anything else on the planet by simply pushing down a foot. This species also figured out how to make sand think, get up out of a chair and dance, make music, calculate taxes (which is no small thing).

This unique animal is also good at self-deception. We are able to blame cattle for what we're doing.

1B: There is evidence that the Earth has warmed and cooled in the past. Just how this happened is not well understood, nor is it greatly relevant to the present situation. That was then, this is now. However, understanding what happened in the past might be important to how we handle the present. Then again, it might not.

2. If “greenhouse gasses” are the culprits for Climate Change can we reduce world emissions enough to make a difference without reductions by the developing world including China and India?

I think we can find a solution to that puzzle if we try to find one rather than bickering about the puzzle itself.

3. Should the US do whatever it takes, even at a cost of 400 billion, to reduce emissions or should we use the money to prepare for the inevitable?

We could use the money to develop better energy sources than fossil fuels, and thus corner the market on energy worldwide. The solution to the puzzle involves making fossil fuels obsolete, and thus the developing parts of the world will buy from us and not the Middle East.

The puzzle really isn't that difficult. Developing nukes, that was hard. Getting that sand to think, pretty challenging. All we're talking about here is how to boil water. We already know how to boil water, now the challenge is how to do that without burning coal.

We tried nukes only to discover that the energy is way more expensive than coal. Nukes don't work without large subsidies, both direct and indirect -- as for handling the spent fuel and for nuclear arms proliferation.

So what else do we have that's hot? The sun is pretty dang hot. Earth's magma runs around 1,800 degrees F where it meets the crust. All we have to do is boil water. That's all a coal-fired plant or nuke does.

Along with this fairly simple puzzle, we can develop systems that pull CO2 from the atmosphere and maybe make something useful, like food or building materials. Living plants do this all the time, how hard can it be?

The Earth's climate is changing. I'm almost out of snowblower gasoline and will need to fill the jug again before the next blizzard, first time in eight years. I'd rather be collecting electricity for an electric blower from solar panels on the sunny days. Maybe that'll happen in this lifetime, which would be something special.

I look at my desk and compare it to the one I used in college. There's no typewriter. The clutter is still pretty much managed, more or less, but there's no typewriter. It went obsolete, and so should fossil fuels.

No the real issue is what temperature rise can we expect from the increase in CO2. Is it 1/10 deg F over 100 years with other factors out of our control responsible for the rest or more? The jury is still out.

And then if you conclude (with little conclusive evidence) that CO2 is the big culprit what can we do? NO reduction by the US even at a cost (to us) of 400 billion will reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. And with China and India out of the reduction effort we would be throwing our money away – lets use it to prepare for the consequences (if any) of warming (if it continues). In addition the Kyoto Treaty, with its 1990 start date (ratified in 2003!) is a joke and this is why Clinton would never sign it. The 1990 date allows the Europeans to benefit from the cleanup of East Germany in meeting their reduction quota.





Mr. Crichton was making a point about a scientist who developed data that conflicted with the GW mantra and was ostracized for it. Want to comment on this? He was not making an absurd argument on this issue. (see above where I quoted him)

The predictions are for more than 1/10 degree F over the next 100 years. But, yes, you are correct that though CO2 is part of the cause, the effect will be rising global temperature. I would argue it is better to address the causes rather than the effects.


You won't get any argument from me that Kyoto is a seriously flawed treaty (and arguably unfair). I'm also unsure what $400 billion of "cleanup" would actually buy us. I'd rather see $400 billion (wasted or not) go to dealing with the environment than on ill-conceived, ill-management and losing wars though. As for what can we do to reduce CO2 production, I believe there's a lot we can do (I won't cite here as this has been argued to death over the past years).


First, you used "absurd" as a counter-argument. This won't get you anywhere. Second, if there is one lone cartographer who believes in the non-existence of Idaho, then clearly Mr. Crichton (and you as well) must give this person credence. Are you shouting down the theory of Idaho's non-existence because it goes against conventional manifest wisdom?

1. The impact of man on CO2 levels is not zero. In order to eliminate man's impact you would have to eliminate man.

To eliminate man's impact on CO2 levels, you'd have to:

A. Have man stop breathing. Is that an option for you?
B. Cease the burning of anything for heat, power, food, industry, transportation, etc. Is that an option for you?
C. Stop removing any foliage that removes CO2 via photosynthesis even if it's for food, etc. Is that an option for you?

The bottom line is that we have NO IDEA what the contribution of man would cause and what is possible to change.

A few basic logical facts that the alarmists seem to gloss over.

1. Removing man is not an option. Man introduces CO2 as a life function and as part of the basic functions to preserve life and human civilization.

2. Therefore, even with the "cleanest" technologies, there will be a significant impact on CO2 levels as a result of man being alive in the first place. This baseline of CO2 creation is more than would exist if man didn't exist. Therefore, man's impact is inevitable.

3. The composition of the atmosphere has been incompatible with human life many times in the earth's 5 billion year old history. These changes occurred without the impact of man (or dinosaurs, etc.). Therefore, it's been proven that the earth could turn "hostile" toward human life with our without our help.

Finally, why worry about this? When you rank it against the things we CAN do something about, it's relatively unimportant.

We should be focusing on people, not the planet.

.




You missed my point. The evidence has not shown conclusively that CO2 is responsible for the rise we have seen to date and may see in the future. Thus spending 400 billion to “try” to reduce GW is a waste of money – esp. when it cannot be done without China and India reducing their emissions. And they are INCREASING their emission in a BIG way and will continue to do so.

China will complete an average of one new big power plant a week going forward totaling over 500. Not one is going to deal with CO2 emissions and nearly all are coal fired. Worse yet dozens of illegal (not gov approved) plants are being build because some sectors of China just cannot wait for gov approval.

As one scientist puts it “over the 60 year life span of the Chinese plants they will introduce into the atmosphere about as much CO2 as was released by ALL the coal burned since the dawn of the industrial revolution”





If you want to blow off this scientist and all his data with a silly argument about Idaho fine – you are not alone and this is the problem with the debate at the scientific level. If you agree you are “in” and if not you are “out” and your data gets no real review. This is a real good reason to NOT spend money yet.

If we happen to wreck the planet, HUmans will have nowhere to live.

We can do all sorts of things to change the amount of greenhouse gases we produce, we just don’t want to, because for some reason I don’t understand, and reasons that typically do not make sense, climate change or global warming is not an issue of people breathing.

For some reason global warming is for the most part been wrapped in some shroud of liberal alarmism bent on destroying America, though if ask for what purpose I doubt you could get an answer.

I regret to say this is a false analogy. The statement is true, but does not support your conclusion. Yes we cannot accurately determine every factor that caused previous warming trends, but we can see obvious commonalities. The rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is a primary commonality, and it applies even during the medieval warming period of 850 to 1100 AD.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...t-nee111805.php

As to the link between full understanding and understanding our impact, I should point out that in the history of nature there have been uncountable extinctions of species, some gradually some in mass die-offs occurring constantly due to causes we cannot comprehend. But does the fact that we do not understand the global structure of animal extinction by definition mean that Humans are incapable of causing extinction, and that this extinction cannot be codified and measured, and attributed to direct action?

The underlying process is the process by which the fragile and dynamic nature of the climate is affected by gasses which are expelled into it. We may not understand the exact historical interaction, partly because we could not take good atmospheric reading in standard scientific notation 10,000 years ago, but we can still see basic proven interrelationships and measure them against current interrelationships: basic cause and effect.




Indeed, the statement is not reasonable, but neither is the question. The mass CO2 being expelled into the atmosphere is a recent phenomenon, a product of late stage industrialisation. Furthermore, we have the technology to curb and in some cases eliminate these emissions. So regression back to the stone age is obviously not an option under consideration, nor is it necessary.




With apologies, no it is not subjective. The profound effect I was speaking of was not just in terms of climate, but in terms of effect on the surface of the globe overall. From the landscape to the species that inhabit it the change is enormous. Since we already understand that the climate is a dynamic system responding to overall conditions, that makes it inevitable that it would be affected as well.

As I stated earlier, I never understood those who tried to use the climate's dynamic nature as an argument against global warming. If the climate had been static and unchanging for thousands of years I would have a much harder time accepting that humanity had affected it with our pollution and detritus. But the fact that historical record proves the climate is sensitive to changes in the environment around it is evidence that man can affect it. This is why I said it is arrogant to assume that with all the changes we have made planet wide, we would not be having an effect on the global climate. This is not only real and predictable, it was inevitable.



Actually I believe you will find that the vast majority of the atmosphere is only about 20 km thick, with residual particles above that. However, while you are correct that mankind inhabits a relatively large portion of the globe, man affects a huge portion of it. One does not need to inhabit the land to dump pollution there, in fact usually exactly the opposite. Humanity has already affected the climate in local areas, be it the acid rain of North America, the national industrial smog of Pre-war Britain, the micro-climates of major cities, the CFC caused Ozone hole, and dozens of other examples. The measure of pollutants expelled into the atmosphere is in the billions of tons. How can we possibly presume this would not have an effect? And if it does have an effect, then an increase in the mass of pollutants in a short time would increase the effect.



You will forgive me, but I do not understand this point. Yes, climatology is a subset of science. It is in fact, the subset that deals with the climate. Thus, if we are dealing with scientific questions regarding the climate, I would choose to speak to a climatologist, not a scientist whose speciality is, for example, superfluids in magnetic fields. Worse still, as far as I can tell the specialists in the field who have overwhelming majority consensus on the issue are in agreement with other scientists in related fields. Its not like there is another field who strongly disagree with the climatologists. Anyone whose speciality in any way intersects with the subject in question overwhelmingly supports the man-made impact on Global warming.

Thus, your point seems to be, if I may be allowed a parable, we cannot trust the mathematicians on the subject of mathematics, because we did not ask the cheesemakers what they think. But even worse, as far as one can tell, even the cheesemakers seem to agree with the scientific consensus.




Well this point is difficult to argue in such a forum. I have seen a fair amount of hard evidence, more than enough to support the consensus, and I am not even close to a specialist in the field. I am an IR fellow dealing with religious coexistence and Intelligence analysis, yet even I have seen plenty of mutually supportive and overlapping hard evidence in a dozen different journals. So all I can suggest here in the framework of this debate is perhaps you should look a bit harder.

And were we debating the issue of creationism, and I cited as my scientific source proving my argument a letter written by Steven King, would you accept that as trumping the scientific consensus? I suspect not, yet that does not stop Michael Crighton from being proposed as a contrary expert in such debates. Not only is he not a scientists, he's not even a very good writer any more. His last few books have been mind-numbing dreck.

Which heretofore unmentioned industry/technology existed which caused this rise in CO2 and subsequent warming? Clearly, if man is the cause, as is being argued currently, then man MUST have been the cause then. Industry is being blamed for the cause now, so it MUST have then also been the cause then. So, what industry existed 1,000 years ago that caused this global warming. Also, how come it stopped? Notice further that this trend went on for 250 years. We're about, what, 20 years or so into the current one?



Alright then...the cause is most likely the reduction of rain forest. It correlates almost exactly with the rise in CO2 levels being mentioned. Yet no one seems to want to address that.