If you think the referenced report was written by Al Gore or scientists, conspiracy-theorists or a liberal think tank, think again. The report was authored by six retired admirals and five retired generals. And even the scientists think the report is a “bit alarmist” in its predicted timeframe.


The report itself can be downloaded here: CNA

Is using the threat of increased terrorism to focus on climate change a positive way of addressing the issue or not?

Is this an angle conservatives can rally around (national security) in order to address climate change issues? Will this report make any difference in the conservative stance on climate change?

How in hell do “six retired admirals and five retired generals” know squat about atmospheric science? All you have here are people who agree with the wacko Al Gore worst case scenario sounding off.




No this is more of the same alarmist nonsense. Do we really think that countries will not notice and deal with the results of warming if it happens? If the water rises for example, as it has in the past do you think countries will deal with it or just give up and watch the low land flood?

Ted, Ted, c'mon now, at least READ some of the source material before you go bouncing off the walls and dismiss it all as a liberal plot of some sort. While retired generals and admirals aren't climatologists, they are military strategists, and I'm assuming they are intelligent enough to grasp concepts put to them by scientists, and that is how they are approaching the issue. I thought you'd be intrigued that they're hanging a military angle on environmental changes. You really ought to read the report before condemning it. But, hey, if you refuse to open your mind to the possibilities, far be it from me to force you to.

This is hardly the first time that the obvious link between national security and climate change has been raised. It is fairly standard fare within the environmental community and even the Defense Department has raised the issue before. See this old Observer article for example.

As for the impact of the more recent report upon the political will to act effectively to address the threat, it can't hurt. However, I view it as a small part of the accumulating body of evidence that should make it impossible for any serious person to fail to take the issue seriously.

In the long run, I fear that there will be a competition for resources between the advocates of the national security state and those who wish to devote massive resources to the development and deployment of safer energy technologies and energy efficiency together with mitigation efforts to reduce the release of greenhouse gases and mitigate climate change impacts. I'm not sure our debt encumbered economy can support both massive military expenditures, to deal with a world destabilized by both ill considered interventions and major climate change, and the large investments needed to change our energy technologies together with the mitigation expenditures needed to address the climate change already built into the dynamics of the climate system. On the other hand, the US has a history of dressing needed programs in National Security attire in order to enact them. For example consider the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act and the National Defense Education Act. Perhaps a National Defense Climate Change Act is in the cards.

You sum it up nicely TedN5. If we are stupid enough to blow 400 billion a year to reduce CO2 before we even know it will make a difference we are just idiots. Lets spend the money on alternative energy to get us off foreign oil and how about we get our own oil, gas, etc.

The world is always unstable and climate change will be IMO a minor impact. Take Africa. Millions dead to genocide and war – now how much worse will it get? The major countries will deal with any climate change. Compared to radical Islam and nuclear proliferation this is a minor threat.

Ted, you and I couldn't disagree more completely if we were from different planets! The point of my post wasn't to denigrate the threat of climate change or the need to take urgent steps to deal with its causes, I was merely pointing out that having elements of the national security apparatus identify climate change as a security threat wasn't an unmixed blessing for those of us that desire a comprehensive response.

Your quotation from Einstein also seems out of place in this context. What could be more evil than seeing a third of humanity starve or die in chaos because of our affluent life styles and failure to act on the overwhelming evidence now available? Were Einstein alive he would be at the forefront of those demanding action.

As for the current chaos in parts of Africa, neither the West nor climate change are without some measure of responsibility. The control of resources to provide western markets are the source of much of the turmoil in Africa. (Often with the direct on the ground involvement of western firms). The civil wars in the Horn of Africa have also been partially caused the by long droughts that have created a competition for resources which, may in turn, be the product of late 20th century climate change. This is certainly the case with Darfur. The genocide in Rwanda was definitely influenced by over population and successive division of subsistent farms into smaller and smaller plots, however, here the decent into hell was more clearly domestically caused. All of these situations do serve to make us aware what the world could be facing in broad areas if we don't act collectively and effectively to first slow, then stop, then reverse the forcing of greenhouse gases.

Sometimes I think big oil must be paying you to say such stuff really. I have been in debates online that involved way over the standard most the debates here on AD take on by actually professionals in the field. The amount of data that supports human connection to global climate change is actually quite staggering anymore really, but for a loyalist as yourself bush silencing scientists is probably a proper move in all reality. The really funny part is you don’t know how stupid you sound half the time, and to be honest sometimes I just post stuff in such debates to make you say more of it just for fun. I mean when you bring up things about the med evil warming period, its just so funny because to someone versed in such it really just highlights the staggering amount of ignorance you posses on the topic really. Hey ted, what does quantum mechanics and global warming have in common?

Is using the threat of increased terrorism to focus on climate change a positive way of addressing the issue or not?

Not really, but if it works then I say go for it!


Is this an angle conservatives can rally around (national security) in order to address climate change issues? Will this report make any difference in the conservative stance on climate change?

No I don't think so. American conservatives in particular appear to wallow in a self denial as to their own impact on the environment that borders on insanity. Alas, I think its going to take a lot more pain before the USA 'gets it' with regards to the environmental destruction it is spear heading and few countries are going to take the lead of the USA does not.

And even in those countries that have, like my own, it transpires that we have been lied to and are equally guilty. For years Denmark has maintained an image of itself as an environmental pioneer with wind power being used as a flagship for our national environmental strategy. Now however we have learned the truth is, we are, per capita, the tenth most wasteful country on Earth. Quite how this happened is no mystery, with the advantages of globalisation have come the disadvantages of capitalism with greed fuelling an ever more urgent need to acquire more and more wealth. Denmark is now approaching a point in its development where the average Dane is a millionaire, but the cost of this wealth is a huge increase in waste.

The truth is, the greatest threat to our national security is our own wealth. It breeds garbage, complacency and ignorance in equal measure and attracts immigrants who breed copiously, pushing up the population and who care nothing for our country and all adds up to a society based on consumption rather than conservationism.

Recent figures from the UN (see below) suggest the world population is set to almost double in the next generation. No matter how 'caring' we are, we cannot continue to feed this population growth. Bob Geldof can sing and rant until he is blue in the face, but the people he thinks he is saving are still busy trying to breed humanity into oblivion. This is the reality, the inevitable conclusion of over population on a global scale. Total collapse.

Link.

Will it make any difference though?

I don't think so. Most conservatives are grounded in a political reality which deals with a La Vey style satanist world view (also known as fundamental individualism) and have no urge to save the world. They are past caring what happens to any one beyond their immidiate personal perception. Those few who do care appear to be resigned to their inability to affect any change and unfortunately I find myself in their number. I cannot see how the masses of the third world can be made to stop breeding so much. When so many tradtional cultures and religious ideologies urge people to breed as much as possible, then the only future I can see is one where these many wars have taken place and in the break down that follows the rich will massacre the poor, or vice versa. Either way I predict wars will break out in Europe within the next twenty years as the current ongoing Balkanization process leads to Anatolian/Beirut style Muslim take overs.

If this gradual slide into war, and the environmental impact it will inevitably have on us is not a matter of urgent self preservation, then I don't know what is. National security in Europe is a joke however. Most nations here are busy deconstructing their nations as fast as they can. It won't make any difference.

Sure TedN5 lets see if we can blame Africa on the rest of the world instead of the corrupt leaders and tribal violence and corruption that never ends. I don’t buy it. The continent is rich in minerals, oil, and for the most part favorable climate. Droughts, hurricanes etc. are worldwide phenomena and Africa gets its share – not more.

The issue for me with “greenhouse gasses” is simple – there is not yet enough proof “we” are the cause because of an increase in CO2. And even if we were the current idea of spending 400 billion a year to reduce our emissions while China, India and others more than offset it is so ludicrous as to be not worth talking about. Lets spend the 400 billion on new power plants and oil exploration – then we can reduce CO2 somewhat AND head toward energy independence.

China to pass US greenhouse gas levels by 2010
By Saeed Shah
Published: 08 November 2006
“China's rapid industrialisation and rising wealth means that it will become a bigger emitter of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, than the United States by 2010, an authoritative report says.
The International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises industrialised countries, predicted that global carbon dioxide emissions would increase by 55 per cent between now and 2030, unless "urgent" action was taken by governments and consumers.
China will account for 39 per cent of the increase in carbon dioxide, as its emissions more than double in the period to 2030. This is largely because it is reliant on getting its electrical power from "dirty" coal-fired power stations, rather than relatively clean gas-fuelled plants. It will overtake the US as the world's biggest emitter before 2010, the IEA said, a decade earlier than other forecasts have suggested.”
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/...9567563628.html

Darfur is a problem the EU should address along with the UN – and while they sit on their collective butts I challenge you to make a case for the US going in (alone) to “save people”





To you maybe not me. And as I have posted plenty (nearly 1/2) of atmospheric scientists disagree. And as I said above it matters little. Why spend 400 billion a year to do NOTHING.

Here you can find the correct UN population figures and no, we are not set to double over the next generation. Last I checked, a generation was around 30 years, so here you go.



Now, you could tell me that this 2 billion people is going to cause mass starvation, etc. The only problem is, we have been hearing this over-population problem for 40 years. Hey, the last 2 billion people didn't cause anything that was predicted either. I was assured that we would run out of oil, precious metals, food, water, you name it. Heck, this is the fifth time since 1880 that we are "about to run out of oil." And those predictions were all wrong. Even in Calcutta, home of the very effective first paragraph of "The Population Bomb," has a decreasing fertility rate.



Sorry, more people does not equal disaster. In my country, the poor people are likely to be obese before they are under-nourished. Sooner or later, we have to stop believing these doomsday scenarios, because they just make for bad policy.

Up date on China CO2 making the Kyoto Treaty even more worthless:

By Barbara Lewis | April 18, 2007
LONDON (Reuters) - China will overtake the United States as the world's biggest emitter of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) either this year or next, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/arti...o2_emitter_iea/

(Ted)




The case for human caused climate change is overwhelming. The IPCC's AR4 raised the probability from 66% probable in the TAR to 90% probable. Many scientists involved in the last review of the scientific literature wanted to rate the probability even higher but were turned away by the political reviewers. The statement about 1/2 of atmospheric scientists disagreeing is simply nonsense. A random sample review of the peer reviewed literature in 2004 did not find one article that disputed the consensus view. See Test of Consensus Article. This review has been revisited by LA Times. More than likely a few papers challenging the consensus view do exist that were not selected in the sample; however, the claim you made concerning 1/2 of all atmospheric scientists disagreeing is simply false information.

As for the growth of Chinese and Indian emissions excusing our failure to act, that is another flawed thesis. Your own references illustrated the tendency of the Chinese to rationalize their failure to act by the failure of the US to act while it continues to emit drastically most GHGs per capita than any country. We can best influence both countries by curbing our own behavior and by pioneering solutions that can later be applied in poorer countries. That is partially what Kyoto was designed to accomplish. It was to be followed up by a more inclusive and comprehensive treaty.

The other aspect of the Chinese and Indian experience, that I never see discussed, is the large portion of their industrial production (and GHG release) that goes to provide American and other rich countries with consumer goods. That portion of their emissions should more properly be assigned to the consuming country.

Well maybe it is more than you think sir. See below. And the shear stupidity of spending 400 billion a year knowing that it will have virtually NO effect on total CO2 growth, especially as China passes us this year, blows my mind. The idea that we should spend this money to be an “example” to China and India is ludicrous. They are thinking of their economy. China is building an average of one big CO2 belching, coal fired power plant a WEEK. There is no indication they will slow down – in fact I read it was worse since some provinces cannot wait for government approval and are building dozens of ‘illegal” coal fired plants. I am not in favor of wasting money. Lets spend it to become energy independent – which would also lower our CO2 output.

As far as taxing goods from China to penalize them for their carbon emissions – good idea but the WTO might not agree! Or the American people – who ultimately PAY all taxes.

"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_op..._global_warming

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

Ted, this is the same tired ground that has been covered repeatedly in other threads on this site and elsewhere. In the meantime the case for human caused climate change has only become more overwhelming as conflicts in the evidence have been resolved almost always in favor of the consensus view. Sure there are some industry funded skeptics and institutions that still dispute the issue and even a few that have climate science credentials like Richard Lindzen. However, very few have published any peer reviewed articles that challenge the consensus view. Even Lindzen, who has published numerous papers in the field, has never published one seriously refuting anything fundamental to the consensus position.
Don't you find it exceedingly strange that a random sample of 928 papers in the fields involved with this research would not yield a single paper that challenged the view shared by most climate scientists? Even your own Wikipedia article indicates how marginalized the skeptics are.

[/quote]While the first point (measured temperature change) is now accepted by virtually all climate scientists, a small number of scientists—relative to the number supporting the mainstream view—actively disagree with the second or third points.[1] This article lists persons with scientific experience who have, since the Third Assessment Report, published research or made public comments opposing at least one of the conclusions listed above.

The criterion for inclusion in this list is that the individual has published one peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences (though not necessarily in a field related to climate). For a general list including other individuals, see global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, and not on listings in petitions or surveys.[quote] Wikipedia Skeptic Article.

Your references are also dated and do not take into account the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report nor papers published since 2004. The diatribe in the Wikipedia article by Tim Ball pointing out the conflict between ground based and satellite temperature records is particularly telling in this regard. This controversy has now been resolved in favor of the ground based measurements.

As I posted there are hundreds of non “industry funded” scientists who disagree. And as the article says not all on the GW bandwagon are capable of determining the causes – they are looking at results. The question is not is the world warming but WHY. Is it a natural cycle, the sun, CO2 or something else and if it is CO2 the question then is how much of the warming is CO2. Certainly the fact that CO2 is not leading the temperature increases says something.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/...-not-leads.html

Don't you find it exceedingly strange that a random sample of 928 papers in the fields involved with this research would not yield a single paper that challenged the view shared by most climate scientists? Even your own Wikipedia article indicates how marginalized the skeptics are.


As one scientist said :there is no such thing as total consensus” in science. This is a pack lead by a few with many (as above) jumping on with “results” not causes. Or as you say (The criterion for inclusion in this list is that the individual has published one peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences (though not necessarily in a field related to climate). And From what I have heard the minority gets crushed in this debate - http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publi...richton2003.pdf


When a leader in the field Mann – says we must “cover up” the MWP you know there are issues.


But all other things aside and even if we were all positive CO2 was the cause the magnitude of the CO2 effect is still in dispute with various and different “models”. And above all of that is the issue which I must come back to – it is nearly useless to spend 400 billion a year without China, India and others on board and the standards even stricter – because if CO2 is the main factor there is no way in hell we will stop it now.

So lets spen the money on becoming energy independent and if that reduces CO2 (which it will) all the better.

Give it up Ted! Just as with your arguments regarding Iraq and the Middle East, the facts have overwhelmed your ill informed arguments. Multiple avenues of research have demonstrated that global warming is real, that it is largely driven by the release of greenhouse gases, that human civilization is largely responsible, and that more and more climate impacts are showing up from the Arctic to Australia. See the Australian Drought.

Meanwhile you are reduced to mouthing tired diatribes from a group of skeptics who have lost all credibility and to citing arguments from web pages meant to show that your arguments are invalid. No, the fact that CO2 increases lagged temperature increases in the paleo-climate record does not support your position. Sure it means something. It means that small changes in the earth's orbit or axis of rotation produced small increases in temperature that gradually released more and more CO2 which produced major increases in temperature. It also indicates that the large releases of CO2 and other GHGs by industrial civilization is likely to produce the same effect. This is one of the lines of evidence for global warming producing climate change.

Hey nothing personnel – I just don’t agree. You carefully avoid the MWP – for good reason. I guess we can wait and see can’t we.



CO2 lagged last century as well – harder to blow off. In any case since there is no way in hell, even if we spend the 400 billion/ year, that CO2 is not going to continue growing we should find out how good the predictions are over the next decade or 2.
While we will start to waste money reducing CO2 I cannot imagin that even the Democrats will want to sign the silly Kyoto Accord – Clinton never did.

Ted, I don't know why I bother but here is some more refutation. (Incidentally, the debate in last year's forums was similar but at a higher level. See Post 246 Here for example).

I wasn't aware that you had brought up the "Medieval Warm Period" so I had no need to avoid it. No one was keeping world wide records then or even accurate local records nor do any good proxy records exist to establish it. Most climate scientists that deal with historical climates doubt that it existed in any world wide sense. See this RealClimate glossary discussion.

Please be more specific about CO2 lagging temperature change in the last century. I suppose it is possible since changes in albedo due to agriculture and increases in methane and other greenhouse gases were also important forcing agents in the 20th century. In any case I haven't seen anything that contended this. Accurate measurement of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere only started with the International Geophysical Year in 1957-58 so any comparisons would have to be done with short term proxy evidence which would be difficult. Maybe you really don't mean lagging but are referring to the argument of skeptics that the cooling observed in the 70s while GHGs continued to rise invalidates the correlation between their increasing concentrations and increases in temperature.

You're wrong! We can't wait and see. If we don't take serious steps within the next ten years to lower the release of GHGs, our children and grand children will face a bleak future in a drastically changed planet. We are already seeing impacts and at least as much additional temperature increase as we have already seen is already built into the system with more being added each and every day.

That’s funny I read differently and posted it above. And this is the standard answer form the GW crown. Only your data counts – all else is “industry lies” Ya sure. The MWP was global and embarrassing – so Mann and others just ignored it.

Release No.: 03-10
For Release: March 31, 2003
20th Century Climate Not So Hot
Cambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years

. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century

. The worldwide range of climate records confirmed two significant climate periods in the last thousand years, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. The climatic notion of a Little Ice Age interval from 1300 to1900 A.D. and a Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D. appears to be rather well-confirmed and wide-spread, despite some differences from one region to another as measured by other climatic variables like precipitation, drought cycles, or glacier advances and retreats.

The different indicators provided clear evidence for a warm period in the Middle Ages. Tree ring summer temperatures showed a warm interval from 950 A.D. to 1100 A.D. in the northern high latitude zones, which corresponds to the "Medieval Warm Period." Another database of tree growth from 14 different locations over 30-70 degrees north latitude showed a similar early warm period. Many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

And of course the authors are attacked - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...17/145520.shtml

Mann is a liar and others have said so as well.




How can you say this knowing that without China and the other developing countries it is IMPOSSIBLE. Why spend 400 billion for this stupidity??? Do you get it?? We will NOT, do it without China and draconian measures beyond Kyoto. See any sign this will happen as China passes up in CO2 output this year????

Sorry, I looked through your posts above and couldn't find any reference to this. Perhaps I was confused by your posts such as the one to a 1993 article by Richard Lindzen. Please provide a link. I would like to see your reference in its original source.

Here it is
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/press/archive/pr0310.html

I realize you have borne witness over the past 7 years to a bad example of such concepts, but it is hard for policymakers in the United States to make a case to China for her to curb her own carbon footprint on this planet when we make zero effort to do so ourselves. Some might call such courageous positions leadership, admittedly an act that has been in short supply this decade.

Pursuing energy independence and reducing carbon emissions are hardly mutually exclusive policy agendas. Besides, 400 billion dollars can't be that much money if we've already spent nearly that much on Iraq, can it? Oh, and your scary dollar figure very likely doesn't take into account the capitalistic ideas that we could actually make money developing the technologies to help reduce our footprint on this planet. Carbon capture is a good example of such promise.

Is using the threat of increased terrorism to focus on climate change a positive way of addressing the issue or not?

Considering that the impact of climate change is still being debated, I don't think we can use this angle. There are various scenarios which suggest that modest temperature increases will actually be beneficial to the first world (which can more easily adapt to changes) and detrimental to the third world (which lacks the resources to adapt). Either way, we can surmise that the upheavals will occur in the third world primarily. As many politicians favor reducing (or eliminating) or interference with the third world, the degree of our involvement in these social issues cannot be determined.

Is this an angle conservatives can rally around (national security) in order to address climate change issues? Will this report make any difference in the conservative stance on climate change?

I don't think it's fair to characterize conservatives as some sort of Pavlovian creatures that respond automatically to the "national security" buzzword. My own (conservative) viewpoint is that we don't understand what is going on, let alone what the impact will be.

Yes, I can agree that if the changes that are predicted by global warming alarmists occur, in the magnitudes that some predict, it will definitely have a social impact leading to social unrest, mass migrations, starvation, etc. When will these impacts occur? I have no idea. Where will the unrest occur? No idea.

I don't think we plan national security decades into the future the way this article assumes.

Ted, I should have recognized your source as the infamous Willie Soon paper, one of the few peer reviewed skeptic papers; however, its publication did result in the resignation of 4 of the editors of the offending journal, Climate Review. The fact that the study was partially funded by Exxon and performed by 2 astronomers (hardly experts in reconstructing climate history) should raise some initial skepticism. However, I will leave it to this RealClimate Article entitled Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition and the links it provides to refute its conclusions.




The statement of the former chief editor of /Climate Research also sheds light on the controversial article. See Hans von Storch.

s.

Leadership for CO2 output changes to China this year. And there is no sign they will do squat to reduce the rapid growth in CO2 output, regardless of what we, or any country does. All I am saying is lets spend the 400 billion on reducing our energy dependence, which will also reduce carbon emissions. This aids our own security as well as reducing CO2 output. The Kyoto Treaty is a bad deal (ever wonder why the CO2 basis date is 1990?) and it will not reduce CO2 output.




to TedN5


Sorry I still believe Mann is a liar and so do others. Here is more:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/...globaltemp.html

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/P...05mckitrick.pdf



http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf


http://www.happinessonline.org/MoralCode/L...thTruth/p32.htm

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/article...v2006forWeb.pdf

Is using the threat of increased terrorism to focus on climate change a positive way of addressing the issue or not?

Positive if it forces the president and his armies of the damned administration to sign the Kyoto protocol.

Negative if it steals the focus from environmental preoccupations to war on terrorism (here you go again Little George).

Is this an angle conservatives can rally around (national security) in order to address climate change issues? Will this report make any difference in the conservative stance on climate change?

The administration has bent the law and morals as much as it could in the last 7 years. Why would they start changing now? whenever they address climate change, they thwart the facts to justify their position overly pro-economy.

A liar? Readers of your posts have clear evidence that you continue to defend an administration filled with individuals who have lied; consequently, it is doubtful that you are capable of recognizing a liar when you read or hear one in this context.

Michael Mann's reconstruction of past climates was used in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report and his temperature graph known as the "Hockey Stick" was used as an illustration. It has been attacked several times and defended again and again by Mann and others. (Here for instance and Here andHere). How anyone can conclude from all this that, "Mann is a liar," is beyond me!

Even if one were to accept some of the criticism of Mann's methodology, other reconstructions demonstrate practically the same result. And, even if one were to throw out all proxy based climate reconstructions, it would not fundamentally alter the case for global warming in the late 20th century and the threat its continuation poses from drastic climate changes in the 21st and beyond.

For anyone who wants some real information on this issue that is fundamental to our future, the IPCC's AR4 or 4th Assessment Report is now available in full at AR4 Online.

Sorry I am not alone in not buying it. You sound like Gore – everyone believes it except those with an “agenda” – the guys with the agenda IMO are the GW advocates. So I am still un sold and no “security” issues will buy me over. Reading the complex arguments just tell you haw really uncertain this is and I mean uncertain in degree. Is the warming because of Man” going to be 6.4 deg C this century or .5 deg. Depends on which “model” is right and there are many.

And finally I am a realist – if spending money yields NO results because other countries swamp your “good” witth their “bad” why waste the money??? Lets use it to prepare for (what you consider) the inevitable.

I agree with the CON in this article:

“First, climate change policies must preserve U.S. jobs and competitiveness. Excessive restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions would encourage U.S. companies to shift jobs overseas, where goods can be produced more cheaply and where emissions controls are not as strict, or are nonexistent.
Second, climate change is a global challenge that requires a global response. Fast-growing developing nations such as China and India are just beginning to address this issue, and until they do there is no hope for an overall reduction of CO2. Even if the U.S. were to shut down its entire economy, growth in emissions from emerging countries would replace U.S. emissions within the next quarter of a century.
Third, the U.S. must continue to lead the world in energy efficiency and conservation.”
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/arc...r_earth_so.html