Actually, Amlord, I am in basic agreement with you on all points. I too agree that Kyoto had too many loopholes; but I think that we made some tactical mistakes during the negotiation and we could have gotten an acceptable treaty if we accepted in principle the idea that reduction of CO2 emissions was a good thing. But our negotiators were so whipsawed by so many conflicting pressures that they simply could not get a good treaty -- which is exactly what some of the pressure groups wanted. Once Kyoto was ruined, we really had no choice but to refuse to sign. Nevertheless, we'll be paying for that one for a long time.

I also agree that we need to revive nuclear power. I am very much opposed to coal burning.

I've started to read the study... it's very interesting, thanks for the link.

My concern was geared more to those groups that hate industry and technology and use the threat of global warming to slow it's advance. I wish I could say that these people were mere fringe elements, but they are not. They are leading scientists, UN advisors and founders of large environmental organizations. We have these politically (or maybe religiously) motivated people claiming a global warming doomsday, while we have energy companies claiming that global warming is a myth. It makes for a tough topic to research.

My stance is that the earth has been warming for 18,000 years. If you're going to claim that the last 100 years is mostly due to anthropogenic causes, then you'll need some pretty solid evidence. However, I'd have no problem moving away from a hydrocarbon economy if there is a rational and economically viable plan.

I could get behind an idea like the Lovin's Study (from what I've read)... I think most Americans would feel the same. It should be something we should look into for various reasons.



Erasmussimo,

I used to work in a Nuclear Power plant--specifically on the USS Abraham Lincoln. I have mixed feelings about nuclear power. There really isn't that much Uranium on the earth to provide for a long term solution (unless we find a way to extract it from our oceans efficiently). We can use Thorium however, or even better, Breeder Reactors. The problem is we've all but abandoned our development of Breeder Reactors. Any form of nuclear power and hydrogen fuel cells could go a long way to weening us off oil. The safety concerns of Nuclear power are overblown, but of course we would need to develop a solid plan for the waste products.

Is it too much to dream for a Fission Reactor? It's only 50 years off... (lol--as it has been perpetually for the last 25 years.)

Zarathustra,

You seem to be someone with an open mind. We differ in political approach but if we share a willingness to examine the evidence and seek rational solutions our exchanges should be enlightening to both of us.

I'm glad you're finding the RMI study headed by Lovins to be interesting. I have followed his ideas for nearly 30 years. They made sense when he published "Soft Energy Paths" in 1976 and they make even more sense now. Incidentally, he was trained in England as a nuclear engineer but turned against nuclear power because of fears of proliferation. I shared his concern about nuclear power but have also softened my opposition because of my greater concern about global warming. You are right to point out the limited Uranium resource but I would disagree over reinstituting breeder reactor programs. The fuel they produce is primarily Plutonium which is very dangerous in itself. Having a lot of it in the civilian sector would add greatly to the proliferation threat and would present attractive targets for terrorists. The reprocessing facilities also proved to be environmental nightmares both here and in Europe.

The other thing nuclear advocates need to remember is that nuclear plant construction in this country was stopped more by their economics than by public opposition. It may be that the economics would be better in the current low interest environment where the initial high capital cost could be more easily financed. It's also true that the operating efficiency of nuclear plants have been greatly improved. However, I doubt that the low interest environment will continue and, in any case, we should go with the least cost solutions that Lovins proposes first. (I share your dream about harnessing fusion and have since high school many years ago. I don't think we can count on it soon.)

I think your opinions regarding the level of knowledge about human caused global warming are overly influenced by the contrarian critics like Patrick Michaels ("Satanic Gases" and "Meltdown"). He rarely publishes peer reviewed articles and then not on climate change science. One has to be suspicious of his conclusions anyway because of his long association with oil and coal interests. He even published a climate change newsletter without disclosing that it was paid for by Western Fuels.

The only one of the contrarians that is respected scientifically within the field is Richard Lindzen at MIT. There are other prominent scientists like Seitz and Singer who are critics but they are in different fields.

Even Michaels and Lindzen now accept that some of the temperature change is human caused. Their argument now is more about how much there will be and what and whether we can and should do anything about it. If you follow the debate you will see that one by one the issues and alternative explanations raised by the critics have been answered by researchers. One of the latest examples of this is the study by Qiang FU at the University of Washington that appears to have resolved the discrepancy between surface temperature measurements and satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere. See Qiang Fu.

Its not quite true that we have been warming for 18,000 years. That would include the Younger Dryas as well as other minor cold periods like the Little Ice Age. However, the key point is that the Antarctic ice cores that go back to 400,000 years (4 ice age cycles) before present indicate that the world is warmer now than it ever has been in that period of time. Furthermore, we have already built in at least another 3/4 degree Celsius of warming. We are continuing to add CO2 and other greenhouse gases and black carbons that will take us into unknown territory.

The key thing that the multi-disciplinary effort to study climate change has revealed is that the world's climate is very unstable and small pushes from variations in solar radiation, greenhouse gases, or changes in ocean circulation can push in into an entirely different equilibrium state. While a little global warming may have been a good thing in helping us avoid slipping into another ice age, we are well beyond that point. It's past time that we at least did those things that cause little or no pain while redoubling our efforts to pin down the uncertainties before drastically restructuring our societies.

For a good overview of the science of climate change, I recommend "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer R. Weart and the associated website,
History of GW Science

Amlord,

It would be helpful to look at a little energy history before reaching this conclusion. The environmental community was divided over this very issue. In fact, Friends of the Earth split off from the Sierra Club because the Sierra Club wouldn't oppose nuclear power. While it is true that most of the environmental community, including the Sierra Club, eventually opposed the construction of additional nuclear power plants, there is little evidence that its opposition caused much of a ripple in their construction. WHOOPS didn't abandon the construction of five plants in the Northwest after they had past regulatory hurdles and were partially built because of environmental opponents. They stopped because of the economic conditions. Other plants at various stages of the process were abandoned for the same reason. At the time capital costs were extremely high with real interest rates approaching 10%. Nuclear plants are notoriously capital intensive so their costs sky rocketed.

The other economic factor stopping their construction was the elasticity of demand for electricity. As electric prices went up businesses and people found ways to use electricity more efficiently. With no guarantee that they could sell their capacity after sinking vast sums into construction, utilities abandoned their nuclear projects.

I would favor nuclear generation today over new coal plants, but I think that all subsidies should be removed from the nuclear industry and from fossil fuels as well and we should then see whether the market will go with energy efficiency and alternatives or nuclear or coal or some combination. To make the market really reflect the true societal costs, however, a carbon tax would have to be imposed on fossil fuels and the long term waste disposal costs of the nuclear fuel cycle would have to be internalized to the industry. Even without the tax and the internalization of costs I am convinced that energy alternatives and better efficiencies would win out. On the other hand, I think it very unlikely that we will see even that level of a playing field given the political power of the various players.

Just thought I'd pop by to mention that the scenarios I set out early in this thread (that have been recently revived to be reviled!) were, as I said at the time, more of a thought experiment than a precise description of real outcomes. Nobody has a crystal ball here, but even the most complacent technocrat has to admit that pertoleum-fuelled internal combustion has a limited lifespan - all other things being equal, the fuel will eventually become too scarce to be economically viable (long before it actually runs out).

My intent was, at that point in the thread, to illustrate what I thought was a denial of what quarkhead has more recently, and eloquently, decribed as the precautionary principle, coupled with the idea of odds.

The nightmare scenarios may be highly unlikely, but if the potential harm is high enough, even unlikely scenarios are worth guarding against, aren't they?

Human extinction may not be imminent - it is certainly correct to say that our species has survived ice ages and the like. But it is wrong to say that mass extinctions haven't happened and are not at risk of happening. The largest mass extinction we know of, since the dinosaurs went the way of, well, the dinosaurs, is happening right now through overintensive fishing, pollution, rainforest clearances, and just general 21st century human activity. If these are having any direct ill effects on us now, we haven't noticed them yet, but is this an argument that such carelessness is a good idea?

And anyway - human civilisation has arisen entirely inside the last temperate period - climate has changed only in rather minor ways in the past 15,000 years or so. Another Ice Age (which is likely at some point, if not next week or next year, or even next millennium) would likely completely change the face of the Northern Hemisphere - the human race would likely survive, but New York, Boston, Tokyo, London, Paris - they would be ground down to dirty snow at the foot of the glaciers that would likely cover them.

We also know (or at least strongly suspect) that, civilisations can collapse rather easily than we would comfortably like in the face of sudden change (even if it seems quite minor) - people can forget their technological advancement, their body of knowledge, even their identity, after relatively short periods. e.g. the Mayans were building pyramids and temples in one century and living in reed huts in jungle clearings in the next, without any known outside intervention - the Conquistadors found them that way. Similarly, the Egyptians had forgotten how to build their great works by the time of Classical Rome; whoever built Stonehenge took their secrets with them; without the good graces of Arab librarians, all of classical knowledge (including the very idea of Western civilisation?) would have disapeared from Europe altogether during the Dark Ages, etc.

A warming event (raised sea levels, etc) would likely have similarly dramatic effects, though maybe not on precisely the same places. Is survival at the cost of losing all of that, and maybe that our society and civilisation might disappear altogether - is that kind of survival useful or desirable in any sense other than the Darwinian?

Even during recorded history we know that human activity can have , and has had, dramatic effects on the environment through apparently mundane activity. Albeit on smaller scales than the planetary.

For example - in the Roman era North Africa was the "bread basket of the Empire", and it's no desert. The climate has not warmed there particularly - over-intensive agriculture dried the soil and used up the nutrients and organic matter, and it simply blew away. Much of the Northern Sahara is man-made.

This is happening now in other parts of the globe - the Caspian and Aral Seas in Central Asia are half the size that they were only 50 years ago, simply because water has been abstracted for industry and agriculture. This has, in turn, affected the local climate (there is less moisture in the air).

And yes - Kyoto may not be a particularly good treaty - it certainly doesn't do enough, particularly in the emerging Asian economies. Clearly many thoughtful people on all sides of the argument agree on that, and on the need to move away from fossil fuels, if only because of simple economics.

The problem is that, if the anthropogeneticists are correct, and each new study seems to indicate that they are, it looks clearer that we need a Kyoto treaty that applies to everyone equally, rather for our politicians to bury their heads to protect the people paying for their campaigns.

Kyoto was never envisioned as anything but an initial step. It was suppose to build trust in the developing countries that the profligarate industrial countries would really take steps to curb their greenhouse gas emissions which, on a per capita basis, remain far in excess of either India or China. Subsequent steps were then to include developing countries. In any case, the criticism of the Bush Administration's position on Kyoto is not that they dropped out of Kyoto so much as it is that they didn't propose any sensible alternative. In fact, their proposed energy policy is the direct opposite of one designed to deal with global warming.

Julian, that was an excellent post. I agree with almost every word. Have you read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond? In it he describes a number of civilizations that faced environmental collapse, many of them climate related. Some managed to find solutions while others succumbed and disappeared. The difference was in the quality of their leadership and decision making. It's hard not to consider our own civilization in the same terms. I see western civilization (and the U.S. in particular) facing a series of almost intractable problems that have been allowed to snowball almost without discussion from our leaders. I fear that peak oil, global warming, other environmental problems, and an unsustainable international debt will all play on each other creating the kind of economic conditions that will make it impossible to attack any of the fundamental problems. We have a window of opportunity to use our economic wealth to confront these issues but I don't really think we will.

Is the phenemena known as 'global warming' the result of man or is man's impact of far less importance than the normal dynamics of the planet?

While is undeniable that the world currently is in a warming trend, I would argue that this trend is not man made, because warming trends (many much worse then this one) have been occurring without us for millions of years. The place where I am sitting right now (southwest conneticut) has been underwater before, and will be underwater again. On top of this, do you actually know how little CO2 is in the atmosphere? Its almost a trace gas, as it only makes up roughly 3.5 ten thousands of a percent of the atmosphere (thats .00035%). Venus on the other hand has a 97% CO2 atmosphere, so for us to even get to one hundredth of what venus has, we would have to multiply our current CO2 concentration by about 3000, which would take us (at our current rate of CO2 propagation) roughly that number in years.

Indeed so. Our problem is that property values in southwest Connecticut will be adversely affected by being underwater, and when we calculate the total loss associated with such a result, it comes out to be so large that prudence demands we at least consider what might be done to avert that outcome.

Indeed so. Our problem is that property values in southwest Connecticut will be adversely affected by being underwater, and when we calculate the total loss associated with such a result, it comes out to be so large that prudence demands we at least consider what might be done to avert that outcome.

What can be done to stop millions of gallons water from flooding half the worlds land? Basically nothing. Theres to much land out there to raise all of it, and a seawall would work only if it were flawless (which is impossible). The loss of 50% of the worlds land will cause a collapse of society as we know it, because the worlds remaining agriculture will not be sufficient to feed 6 billion people....

Well, heck it could be worse, it could be the iceage...which coincidently will also be arriving around the next 10 millenia or so.

Sounds pretty bad. If our releases of carbon dioxide are contributing to this disaster, then reducing those releases might stave it off or delay it. Surely it would be to our overall benefit even if it cost us billions of dollars.

This problem has nothing to do with CO2, because there isnt enough CO2 around to significantly effect the atmosphere. Like I said, it will take us about 3000 years to get our CO2 levels to even one hundredth of what they are Venus. To put it simply, mother nature is a bigger threat to herself then we are.

Well, let's just say that there are a lot of scientists who disagree with you on that point. The physics of the greenhouse effect get pretty complicated; there is little question that there is a significant anthropogenic factor in current global warming. There is still plenty of room to question the magnitude of that factor.

Lets get some perspective here.

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm


Once upon a time scientists were worried about a inevitable Ice Age...BRRrrr.
They didn't factor in certain elements to the total equation. As a result the theory
changed to the coming inevitable greenHouse. In another decade or so some other factor
will be taken into account or some new revelation will dramatically alter our perception
of how earth functions as a whole. Hell even DDT isn't considered as dangerous as once hyped.

Wikipedia offers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_coolin...ng_catastrophes

Once upon a time some scientists were worried about another ice age. Other scientists were skeptical because the data wasn't clear. Moreover, the idea of global warming was first mooted in the nineteenth century and was the object of speculation all through the 20th century. I recall discussions of possible global warming in physics classes in the early 70s. Not global cooling. Back then all this was considered hypothetical; perhaps it was taking place but the evidence wasn't good enough back then.

Now the evidence is much better, and so now most scientists have greater confidence in the thesis that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon.

So, your argument is... some Scientists once stated something, and it turns out they were mistaken. Therefore, all scientists will always be mistaken?

Even if we accept your contention that 'scientists all believed in the coming ice age' (which is not true), how does that invalidate the masses of data coming out demonstrating that Global Warming is real, and is a clear and present danger?

If it turns out you are wrong on this Christopher, and that global warming does exist, I assume that meas that, since you were wrong once, nothing you ever say again as long as you live can ever be right?


A new Oxford University study, published in Nature, one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in the field, showed that if anything, predictions of current rates of global warming are optimistic, saying the crisis is already here. It has been hailed by pretty much every major academic institution with a global sciences or environmental sciences department, including Harvard, Penn, Yale, Cornell, Cambridge and of course Oxford.

This is one of many recent studies all showing the same thing, from different sources around the world. Interestingly, despite the skepticism of the far right in the US, there has yet to be a single scientific study stating the opposite. Not one.


So is it possible, just POSSIBLE, that all these people might NOT be part of a massive conspiracy, and just MAYBE they might be on to something?

Climate Change

Once upon a time scientists were worried about a inevitable Ice Age

The world is divided up into Ice Ages and inter glacial periods, that much is certain because if Ice Ages are possible, then their reoccurence is enevitable.

Heres what scientests seem to be saying about them:

Source

Ice Ages are intervals of time when large areas of the surface of the globe are covered with ice sheets (large continental glaciers).

The term is used to describe time intervals on two very different scales. It describes long, generally cool intervals of Earth history (tens to hundreds of millions of years) during which glaciers waxed and waned. The term also describes shorter time periods (tens of thousands of years) during which glaciers were near their maximum extent. These shorter intervals are also known as "glaciations."

In addition, the term "Ice Age" is sometimes used to refer to the last major glaciation that occurred in North America and Eurasia. When used in this way, the first letters of both words are often capitalized. This is the way the term Ice Age is used in the Midwestern U.S. 16,000 Years Ago exhibit.

Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time.Instead, they are concentrated into four time intervals. Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between about800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between about 350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene toQuaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during parts of the Ordovician and Silurian (between about 460 and 430 million years ago).

During each of these periods, many glacial advances and retreatsoccurred. For example, over 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years.

If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.

If the above is true, then we are currently in the middle an inter-glacial period of an Ice Age, that recommence in roughly 6000 years.

Well, let's just say that there are a lot of scientists who disagree with you on that point.

What point?

CO2 Cocentration

It says that CO2 makes up 360 parts per million in our atmosphere. This is the same as .00036%. Some other sites claim there is more, but ive seen this statistic in my chemistry book at school (and note that the book emphasized the validity of global warming, so it wasnt biased.)

Venus CO2 Composition

Qoute: The first gas chromatographic analysis of the lower atmosphere of Venus is reported. Three atmospheric samples were analyzed. The third of these samples showed carbon dioxide (96.4 percent), molecular nitrogen (3.41 percent), water vapor (0.135 percent), molecular oxygen (69.3 ppm), argon (18.6 ppm), neon (4.31 ppm), and sulfur dioxide (186 ppm).

Also according to the "Experts", were are currently supposed to be in a state of anarchy, induced by limited food supplys that are the result of global warming somehow destroying our agriculture...thats what they were saying would be happening in 2005 during the 90s anyways. Oh yeah, and last year that they said that this year, there would be no skiing in the alps, because the ice in the alps was supposed to melt. Doesnt this sound a bit like fear mongering to you?

The physics of the greenhouse effect get pretty complicated; there is little question that there is a significant anthropogenic factor in current global warming.

You keep telling your self that.

There is still plenty of room to question the magnitude of that factor.

Well heres what I can conclude thus far:

1. On the surface the science behind global warming being caused by CO2 is not very strong.

2. People tend to (at the very least) exaggerate it in order to cause fear.

Your comparison of terrestrial CO2 concentrations with Venusian CO2 concentrations lacks import. Yes, CO2 concentrations are much higher on Venus than earth; what does that prove? CO2 concentrations on earth are far higher than CO2 concentrations on Mercury, yet surface temperatures on one face of Mercury are much higher than surface temperatures on earth. You can't just draw a line, plunk Venus down at one spot on the line, earth at another spot, and then use that line to predict surface temperatures. Instead, you write what's called a "thermal budget" or "heat balance" equation. A very simple, averaged form of that equation looks like this:

solar constant = Boltzmann's constant * (surface temperature)**4

So please don't underestimate just how complicated this can get.


Who was saying that? Was that something published in a peer-reviewed journal such as Nature? Or was it the comment of some eccentric? If you pick and choose the experts to quote, you can prove anything at all.


Yep, somebody was fearmongering. Who? The scientists who published the study in Nature referred to by Vermillion?


Look, if you want to claim that the physics is simple, or that the anthropogenic factor is negligible, let's see your arguments.



1. How strong? Show me your calculations. You are making a statement about a quantitative value -- how did you arrive at that number? Did you pick it out of a hat? Did you examine a variety of studies and, taking into account your assessment of the relative reliability of each study, arrive at an average figure? And what figure do you arrive at for cumulative anthropogenic temperature increase in the last century? 0.01 Kelvin? 0.1 Kelvin? 1.0 Kelvin?

2. Yes, some people do tend to exaggerate it. And other people tend to minimize it, for other inappropriate reasons. So why don't we concentrate on the evidence rather than the people? The evidence isn't biased. It's complicated, but it's a lot more reliable.

What evidence do we have? The Earth has been geting warmer since 1850 (which was actually before our industry started to massively expell CO2), and in labratory experiments CO2 has been shown to reflect heat.

As you said, Venus is irrelevant, so what applicable experience do we have on CO2 can effect a planets atmosphere? None, because temperature is effected by things other then CO2, and as a result we have no way to isolate CO2 as a variable. Because our current warming trend can be so easily explained by natural fluctations which we know have been happening for millions of years, and because it preceded to advent of massive CO2 expulsion, how can we possibly claim it as viable evidence for global warming? The answer is we cant.

Therefore, the only evidence we have, is from labratory experiments, and because such experiments are not conducted in a naturalistic enviroment, they cant claim to be completely conclusive. As a result, it is irrational to say that there is no doubt that CO2 has been significant factor in the heating of this Earth.

ALHP, about all I can say in response is that the science is thorough, there's a ton of research material out there to consult if you question it, and you're welcome to examine it. If you choose to deny the scientific research on the subject, that's your right.

If you cant defend your theory, then this debate has reached its end...

But the theory is defended, frrequently, entirely, by independent sources and academic institutions around the globe. It has been the subject of severn massive in-depth, independent studies conducted by academic institutions around the world in the last three years, all with the same conclusion.

You were told this before, and your answer was: "yeah, but scientists have been wrong before", and gave as example the fictional anecdote that once-upon a time, all scientists were worries about an inevitable ice age.

Worse, its clear you have not bothered to read any of these studies, you at one point attempt to make the point that we are 'just in the middle of an inter-glacial peiod'. Do you honestly think this has not been taken into account? Atmospheric composition is changing rapidly, and the warming effect is not the milienna long gradual effect you were refferring to, but a short, sharp and suddent increase.

Did you know, that since regional ambient temperature started being recorded, over 170 years ago around the world, the 10 hottest years in that entire time happened in the last 15 years?


The evidence exists in chapter and verse, and as I said, can you point to a single non-partisan study by an academic institution that disagrees with it? Even one?

Your not bothering to read the studies does not make them not exist.

This simply baloney. What can be said with certainty is that scientists have made relatively short-term observations that, in some regions of measurement, the earth is getting warmer.

What I can say with certainty is that these same scientists have NOT been able to demonstrate that the "activity of man" explains this observation.

Why? Because they don't understand the underlying dynamics of our earth's temperature and how the sun (and other extraterrestrial objects) impacts this system, how ocean temperatures, volcanic activity, weather cycles, etc., etc., effect this overall large and complex DYNAMIC system.

The issue is the DELTA between the normal fluctuations of the earth and the fluctuations caused by man. And I assert (and you cannot refute me with the available evidence) that the DELTA cannot be computed because the baseline is unknown.

In other words:

T(overall) = Overall temperature of the earth
T(ref) = Baseline temperature of earth of there was no such thing as "man".
T(delta) = Impact of man.

T(overall) = T(ref) + T(delta).

Since we don't know T(ref), T(delta) is impossible to compute.

There are too many variables and not enough equations. Math 101.

What we see today is that the group of "scientists" you have referenced have (as have you) decided on a conclusion and now are working hard to justify that conclusion by focusing on a small part of the system; namely CO2. Why? Politics which circles back around to my original point which is the global warming "debate" is political, not scientific. Follow the money and the pack mentality of those who make their living as "atmospheric scientists". Want to get a grant in that racket? Just propose studying global warming. Want to get shut out? Go against the scientific heard with independent thought. You'll just be labeled an "industry dupe" by the politically corrupted "scientists".

Global warming is a lot of hot air. For all we know, the impact of man may actually be COOLING the earth and that more activity, not less, is desirable.

So we seem to have arrived at a situation where oppostion to the idea of anthropogenic global warming is based on the fact that scientists do not yet understand the Earth's climate, and all the various factors that might influence it, in enough depth to be able to isolate anthropogenic CO2 emissions and link them to an apparent recent upward trend in temperatures.

Therefore there is nothing wrong and we should keep doing what we are doing.

I take the first point entirely on board. We do not know anything beyond doubt about global warming. There really is a current "microtrend" that coincides with a real observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If there is a causal link between the two, we can expect the temperatures to go on rising. And if the causal link is not already out of control, we may be able to halt or reverse the rise by lowering CO2 concentrations, or slow it by slwoing the rate of increase.

But, if there isn't a link, they may or may not continue to rise, we just don't know. We might put ourselves through economic hardship trying to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, only to live through (or, in the worst case, not live through) the same changes. Or put ourselves through economic pain to see no further changes at all.

However, to say that because the climate is not fully understood, no action at all is justified and we should do nothing different is just as logically flawed as extrapolating the observed trend into Chicken Licken scenarios of doom and gloom.

Because it isn't just the anthropogenetecists who don't understand the climate to the nth degree - nobody does.

If the only "reason" that global warming isnt happening and isn't caused by man is that nobody really knows what drives the climate, shouldn't we be putting a lot more effort than we are into trying to understand it a heck of a lot better, before someone's random domesday scenario comes true.

Thinking about Ice Ages, another period of glaciation would grind most temperate zone Northern Hemisphere cites to powdery mud, causing as much chaos (if not more) as an 8 metre rise in sea levels caused by melted polar icecaps. If there is anything we can do to stop or ameliorate the possible harm, shouldn't we be doing it?

For all anybody knows on the opposition side, the sky really is falling.

Which (yet again) brings me back to my thought experiment of relative risk - even if there is a one-in-a-thousand chance (there is a lot of apparently supportive data for anthropogenesis now, so the days of it being a one-in-a-million chance are gone) of real disaster, surely the cost of economic privation might be a small one to pay?

This isn't a criminal case where one side has to establish it's veracity beyond all reasonable doubt. The bedrock of science is to come up with a hypothesis and then match it against available data. The more data that supports it, the more likely it is that the hypothesis is valid.

Opposition to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has not, to date come up with evidence that disproves the hypothesis (and only one convincing piece of evidence would be needed to do that). Instead, the opposition (here and elsewhere) seems instead to either point out data that just isn't explained fully by the hypothesis (which doesn't claim to explain absolutely everything anyway), or to demand legal standards of proof (which isn't a scientific demand).

In this regard, it doesn't remind me of anything so much as creationist opposition to the theory of evolution. Except in this case, the unspoken article of faith isn't the infallibility of the Christian Bible, but the infallibility of modern Western capitalism. What is so scary about the idea that humanity may be able to change the planet by accident, and may be able to take steps to put those changes right if they become harmful?

No, THAT is simple baloney.

I seriously do not understand you and your ilk in this debate. Is the planet's scientific community playing a big prank on you? Is it all a big conspiracy set to sell more air-conditioners? When dozens of entirely independent academic institutions run massive studies involving hundreds of scientists around the world, and they all produce the same result, is it just a massive co-incidence? Is the fact that there has not been a single study from a non-partisan academic institution that comes to the thesis there is NO threat, just an oddity?




Can you really? How omniscient of you. I assume having read all of these studies, you will be writing to them about the OBVIOUS flaws in ALL of their studies which means they OBVIOUSLY don't know what they are talking about, but Lordhelmet does.

I on the other hand, have read several of thse recent studies, though not all of them by any stretch. In particular the most recent one by Oxford, my alma mater, which actually refutes with great skill and enormous evidence all of your supposed 'problems' with their work. Still, feel free to go to Oxford, present your credentials as an environmental scientist (you are one, right?) tell them you have read their study (you have, right?) and the other studies on the topic (you have right?) and say you can show them that they don;t know what they are talking about by presenting evidence of your own (which you have, right?)




Really?

I am no environmental scientist, and I can certainly refute you. We have 170 years of recorded temperatures, but far more than that we have temperature demonstraters going back tens of thousands of years. Ice core samples can show nearly exactly what the ambient temperature in a region is year to year, so can half a dozen other methods. The temperature on the planet earth has not risen so much so quickly ever before, going back close to 100,000 years. Furthermore, the level of polutants combined with the rate of elimination of oxygen producing forests is also unprecidented. I suggest you read one or two of these studies before glibly dismissing them, you might learn something.




I LOVE this argument. It is exactly the ame argument used by creationists when they are confronted with the overwhleming evidence of evolution. "Want to get a grant? You have to support the current theories!"

OK, reality check. I hve my doctorate from one of the best schools in the world, and am quite familiar with the grant process. But better still, between my masters and my Doctorate I worked for the primary academic granting agency in Canada, for 4 years, and another 6 months working for the sister agency in the UK.

You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. None. Zero. Not a clue.

Firstly, grants form a very small part of funded research, secondly grants are awarded based on the quality of methodology, experimental or controvercial research is ENCOURAGED in all disciplines, as long as people can back up their thesis with facts. Thirdly, academics have no reason to support the status quo, in fact you get far more play in academia if you oppose the status quo and can back up your theories. Academics should be the FIRST people to disprove global arming, but yet they all support it, and suppot it with facts and figures. Fourthly, academic organisations act as individuals in a stream, and associations are loose and informal, so how has your borderline-insane mass conspiacy theory managed to affect every academic working in the field in every accredited university in the first world?


The global warming debate is extremely cientific. The only people making it 'polotical' are those who for their own personal reasons refuse to aknowledge, or even read all the scientific research.

My ilk? A prank? No, a hoax. A financially and politically motivate hoax. As has been pointed out time after time in this thread and others, the same scientists who predicted an ice age 30 years ago, are now the same sort of people predicting gloom and doom related to global warming. The "thesis" is popular. But that's all they are, guesses.

You can take personal pot shots at me all you want. But that doesn't change the FACT that the sum total of all scientific knowledge in the subject of the earth's dynamics is largely NOT UNDERSTOOD.

I know these scientists are "smart" people and "mean well". But, frankly, it's them who don't really know what they are talking about.

The same people who can't tell me if it's going to rain next Monday, and screw up my golf league, are those who you bow down to unquestionably and accept their conclusions without any evidence to back that massive conclusion up.

You mention creationism? Frankly, the blind believers in the global warming hoax are the same sort of "ilk".

You mention data? Why is it only recently that the impact of the Sun is starting to be considered in the earth's temperature?? Not fully considering such a basic part of the equation (the basic source of thermal energy for our planet) sure doesn't make me feel more comfortable with the thesis' of a bunch of overblown weathermen. What about the oceans? What about natural cycles of earth warming/cooling that have gone on for billions of years?

Why the big focus on CO2 and the "elimination of forests"?? Frankly, you have provided no proof that the acres of forests globally is less than it was in say, the 1800's. In many places, the square miles of forest has actually increased. Photosynthesis could care less whether these are new growth or old growth forests. The process works the same on both of them.

If you can prove that man is causing global warming, then do so. The burden of proof is on you and the scientists who are advocating massive changes to our way of life in REACTION to their unproven theories.

You mention temperature measurements up to 170 years ago? Statistically insignificant. 100,000 years ago? A mere blip in geological time.

The issue is not whether the earth is warming. It is. And any idiot who knows that there was an ice age 10,000 years ago and looks out the window can tell you that. It doesn't take a scientist. The issue is what the impact of MAN is on that warming. And in order to compute that, you need a baseline.

None has been developed. If you can find one, post it. If you can't, that proves that my skepticism is fully warranted.

But I understand the vehemence of the global warming crowd. I see the same sort of blind belief among other religious fundamentalists as well. And make no mistake about it, global warming is a religion.

lordhelmet

What is your basis for assuming that all atmospheric scientists (or indeed scientists of any branch of science) that support the theory of anthropogenically caused global warming are all financially or politically, rather than scientifically motivated.

Sure, Michael Chrichton thinks so - but so what? He writes stories, poorly researched pulp science stories - he's hardly an authoratative source.

Who else?

Secondly, I could say that all the scientists who say that global warming is a hoax are financially motivated by Exxon - all scientists are financially motivated - however, given the overwhelming number of scientists who support global warming, I have to say that I'm more inclined to listen to them than I am to people like Michael Crichton.



Of course we know what T(Ref) was! How else do we ever know that ice-ages occured! Temperature records can be calculated from a myriad of sources...otherwise we would have no idea about temperatures before the advent of accurate thermometers...



Umm - where on earth did you find all these little 'facts' from? We know forestry has been declining since the 60s because we have satellite photos to show. Before that, we only have maps, however we 'tend' to assume that maps are accurate, in the same way we assume that what we are told that history is accurate. We rely on what previous generations of people have recorded...what other proof do we have that the American Revolution actually happened? Plus of course, all the secondary evidence, such as soil and plant types in an area, which can tell you whether land was once forested or not..etc etc...

Anyway, got to run now, someone has just cloned dinosaurs and I wanna go see. Must be true, cause I read it in a book.

I guess you misunderstood my point.

T(ref) refers to the temperature NOW that the earth would be at if there were no such thing as "man".

We have no way of knowing that. We also have no way of knowing how man's activities impacts the overall earth's temperature. It could very well be that the impact of man is far down the list of significant contributors to the overall temperature. My guess is that it is. In fact, our impact could even be helping to keep the natural dynamics of the earth more static than they would be otherwise.

If you take a step back and look with perspective you see the following.

10,000 years ago, the land where I live (Michigan, USA) was covered by hundreds of feet of ice. Today, it will be 90 degrees F outside.

If one extrapolates that direction, one might assume that the temperature of Michigan will be tropical in 10,000 years with our without man. Right?

After all, this earth is over 5,000,000,000 years old. 10,000 years is a mere 0.0002% of the earth's lifetime. So, the earth changed from being under slabs of ice to a hot and sunny climate in TWO TEN-THOUSANDTH'S OF A PERCENT of the overall age of the earth. Let's put that in perspective, shall we?

Let's say a person's heart beats 70 times per minute on average during their lifetime, ok.

So, (70 beats / minutes) * (60 minutes / hour) * (24 hours / day) * (365 days / year) * (75 years / average life) = 2.75 billion heartbeats per average lifetime.

What is 0.0002% of that?

Let's see.... 2.75 billion * 0.0002% = 5,500.

5,500 heartbeats would then represent about: (5,500 heartbeats)*(1 min / 70 heartbeats) = 78 minutes of a lifetime. So, what would think if a person went through the massive change analogous to the difference between the ice age and the hot summer day of today in AN HOUR AND 18 MINUTES?

What validity would you give to a doctor who checked the heart for a few minutes and then predicted what would happen next?

The dynamics of the earth are HUGE. We are only starting to BEGIN to understand them. Frankly, scientists are among the most arrogant of our citizens. Yet, each generation continues to prove how foolish the previous generations theories were with only few exceptions.

At the end of the day, we put too much credence in unproven scientific theories and studies especially in areas where the understanding of the science is in its infancy.

Lordhelmet

Okay, my mistake there. However, most assumptions about global warming rest on extrapolation - that we look at temperature rises over the last 800,000 or so years (based on, normally, something like the ratio of mass 18 oxygen to mass 16 oxygen or something like that..) - and then look at temperature rises since we started using fossil fuels in large amounts (mid 19th century or something).

So we can extrapolate a likely T(Ref) - based on the changes in temperature BEFORE we started using fossil fuels and the changes AFTER.

You also need to factor in the Earth's orbit and other factors, but there seems to be enough evidence to suggest that there is a link between fossil fuel consumption, an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and an increase in atmospheric temperatures.



No doubt you are right - but this is true of science in general. The amount of understanding behind space travel was woeful and that certainly never stopped the US and USSR from strapping people into tin cans and shooting them into space. No-one had the faintest idea how large the explosion from the testing of the initial nuclear bomb would be, yet they went ahead and tested it anyway - which given the power of nuclear reaction - was horrifically irresponsible.

And the same is true of medicine and pharmaceutics and all other branches of science. Most drug companies know very little about how the drugs they sell work - precisely for the same reason you have identified - complexity - the human body is hugely complex - and yet they sell them anyway....

At the end of the day, you have to weigh up uncertainties in science.

Please provide the financial evidence to support your claim that this is a financially motivated hoax.


"largely"? We have some scientific knowledge of atmospheric dynamics. Please provide evidence that this scientific knowledge is insufficient to support the models used to predict future global warming.


Can you provide evidence that you do know what you are talking about? Or that, at least, you know better what you are talking about than they do?


Please provide evidence linking the accuracy of three-day local weather predictions with the accuracy of long-term global weather characterizations.


I believe that the first calculations of insolation were made in the 1850s, about the same time that the solar constant was measured. The concept of the greenhouse effect as it applies to global temperatures was first mentioned sometime in the late 19th century.


Please cite a study published within the last ten years that does not include ocean heat capacity in its model.


The conclusions of all the recent studies are that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. The studies themselves constitute the proof. Please present your objections to the specifics of the Oxford study.


But not a mere blip in meteorological time. And we are discussing meteorology, not geology.


Here are 144,000 references: search results. All you do is search for "paleoclimate" on Google and you'll get 144,000 results, many of which can take you to data on paleoclimate results. It would seem your skepticism is not fully warranted.


Are you claiming that scientists who have published results supporting the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming are anti-rationalists? Given your insistent rejection of scientific inquiry in this subject, this would surely seem to be a pinnacle of irony.

Firstly, perhaps you were not paying attention when I made eminently clear that the idea that this massive body of research gathered independently by scientists in universities and think tanks around the first world is all a 'finacially motivated hoax', is literally and unequivocally insane. I note you chose not to address that, but clearly you have not even the slightest clue how either research funding or academic research works. You would be well advised to learn at least a LITTLE about a topic before making such silly, unreasonable, blanket assertions.

Secondly, I also pointed out how odd it was that with all these studies all over the world demonstrating global warming, how interesting it is that there has not been a single one demonstrating that Global warming is NOT a threat, not a single one who has managed to evade this worldwide massive universal mind-controlling evil hoax you have fancifully invented. Even though the majority of such research is UNFUNDED (you would know that if you knew anything about academic research funding practices). I note you did not address that either.

Thirdly:



You have made an error of typing here, you said something is not understood, when in fact you meant that you personally do not understand it. I asked if you had ever read any of these voluminous and evidenced studies, any one of them really, there are dozens to choose from, and I recommended that you might, just MIGHT want to read one of them, ANY one of them before dismissing the whole science as a massive conspiracy involving every environmental, atmospheric, geologic, biological, climatologic and planetologist in the academic first world. This would be a conspiracy that puts the whole JFK thing to shame! I note you did not address that either.

Fourthly:



And you do? My apologies, I did not realise you were more of an expert than these tens of thousands of scientists around the world. What exactly ARE your credentials in environmentology and Climatology? Perhaps, if you are so expert, you might want to consider reading one of the reports these tens of thousands of silly hoaxers have produced?

Fiftly:



LOL, yes, the reports were all produced by TV weathermen.

Ah, I see you fell into that clever trap again. Assuming that all of these reports are just pages and pages of “I donno Dave, what do you think? I dunno Phil, I think it will be hotter.”. It is understandable that you would assume there is no evidence, as you seem singularly unwilling to actually read any of the evidence. But as I said before, your ignorance of it, wilful or not, does not mean it does not exist, and exist in spades. I believe I may have mentioned it, but dismissing an entire science while refusing to read any of the many reports and studies (all unanimous in their verdict, by the way) of that science… well, what would YOU describe that as? What word would you use to someone who dismisses something without knowing the first thing about it or bothering to find out?



Oops, there is that pesky problem again. These reports, in particular the recent Oxford study, DO take the variables of solar activity, and the natural cycle of warming cooling of the earth. I know it is easy for you to now know that, as you refuse to read any of the studies, but once again, I have to advise, just a TINY bit of knowledge of the subject on your part would really go a long way.



Yes, and they have done so. Now the burden is on you to actually inform yourself of what they have produced, rather then pretending it is not there. Their theories are not only demonstrated, but demonstrated in many different ways.

You refuse to read them. Well to be blunt, that’s your problem, not the problem of the science of global warming. But then you maintain the entire group of them, all tens of thousands of scientists are all completely incompetent. Oh, but wait, then you claim the entire group, all tens of thousands of them, have all, universally, every one, been subsumed into a massive Machiavellian conspiracy to fool the world. Which is it again?



Really? Evidence of global warming: Massive- dozens of studies and reports, hundreds of thesies, the near-universal approval and pressure from the environmental science departments, of every major academic institution in the first world: places like Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Penn, Cornell, Yale, U of Toronto, UBC, Stanford, Berkely, Princeton, Columbia, Heidelburg…

Evidence against Global Warming: zero studies from academic institutions, zero articles in peer reviewed magazines, zero reports from non-partisan agencies. In fact, the main evidence against global warming is that Lordhelmet just doesn’t think its real, even though he has never read any of the research on the topic.

So please educate me, which side is a ‘religion’ again?

But, how does that thesis take into account the temperature rise that occurred during the middle ages when man was not capable of producing such CO2?

And how does the simplistic CO2 based model factor in natural occurring volcanic activity? The increase in the sun's temperature? The dynamics of water currents and the differences between the temperatures of these current?

It seems to me that somewhere along the line the scientific community decided that burning fossil fuels was wrong and that CO2 would warm the earth and result in disaster. They then set out to prove it.

When I was in college (1980's), I researched and wrote a paper on "acid rain". There was just a TON of "scientific literature" that predicted that nearly all of our lakes would be now "dead" due to the emissions of fossil fuel burning machines and the interaction with the upper atmosphere.

That theory fell flat on its face.... too.

Interesting theory. ANY evidence at ALL, no matter how small to back it up? I mean anything?



No, actually it didn't, at all. You should have kept up with your research.

Industry and emission standards were changed by the Regan government and continued by Bush Sr, in partnership with the Canadian giovernment. Between 1985 and 2001, emissions of SO2 continent wide, one of the main chemicals the creates 'acid rain', was reduced by 58%. Congress passed several laws based on this throughout the 1980s, culminating in the Acid Deposition Control of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Despite that, there are still many lakes across the US which suffer serious harm from the effects of incresed acidity, endangering many original species. However the measures suggested by environmental scientists sucessfully mitigated the harm and reduced the impact, allowing the lakes to survive, despite the damage.

Thank you for PERFECTLY argiuing my side of the case. Guess the 'scientists' who advised reducing SO2 levels were right.

I guess they were not part of your massive international conspiracy.

No. It's the same as about 99.5% of what's posted on this board... opinion.




This "literature" was written during the Reagan administration arguing that they were not "doing enough". Many lakes have suffered serious harm? Which ones?

It would see them, that the "modest" measures made by two republican pro-business administrations (Reagan and Bush) were more than sufficient and that the radical measures advocated by the "environmentalists" at the time, were massive overkill. And you say I made your point??

It seems that your attitude is that the earth is some fragile thing that if not protected by the scientists (good) against the evil (industry) it'll all just come crashing down.

Balderdash. I don't buy much of what "scientists" say these days. Their environment has become too politicized. One can't turn on the TV or radio today without hearing that "a new report showed that......".

Of course, when you line up all these predictions and findings over the course of time, they can be quite silly.

You mean what you post. I have not seen you offer a single smidge of evidence in this thread yet. However on the other side of the debate, as I have repeated, is enormous body of evidence which your ignoring and refusing to read does NOT make go away.



(backpedal, backpedal, backpedal)

Sorry, but the complete opposite of your original attempt at a point still stands true. Environmental science demonstrated a problem, proposed a solution, it was eventually implemented and the change has been significant. The government did the right thing, eventually, even though the far right in the United States continued to say there was no such thing as acid rain and refused to read any actuall research on the topic. Sound familiar?

Which ones? Ok, here you go...

From Environment Canada:


So much for your argument.



Nice, if desperate try to alter your argument, but it won't do. Firstly, the measures taken by the government were not Modest, they were huge. I don;t know why you felt the need to bring in republican or democrat, that has no relevance here, except maybe to you.

And we are not, and have never ben talking about the environmental fringe here. hey, I agree with you, some of them are downright crazy. What we ARE talking about is the intelligent, informed, educated and evidenced advice of environmental scientists from every university in the western world. Their advice was followed over acid rain, they were right.

So yes, thank you for perfectly demonstrating my point.



No, this is not about good and evil, it is about fact and willful ignorance.



So you say. Of course I and others have repeatedly asked you for any evidence at all, I mean any evidence to support this point, or for that matter ANY of your points, and you have not done so. Frankly, ignore science all you want. That is your right. But is is also your problem, and your loss.



Actually, as you yourself nicely demonstrated, they turn out to be right. Odd how those people who at the time refused to believe it in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence never ave the moxie to actually come out and admit they were wrong...

Massive body of evidence? One does not grade a term paper based on the number of pages included. My point has been and continues to be that this evidence is all based on a preconceived conclusion. It ignores too many important variables to be valid. Sorry, but that's the case. The other mindset that seems to prevail is that the earth is a static place. It's not. It's extremely dynamic. That's why so many people point to "temperatures are changing", "the glaciers are retreating", the "ice caps are moving around" and once again, combining OBSERVATIONS with CONCLUSIONS.

But, I can see that arguing with you about this is about as productive as arguing with a religious fundamentalist that there is no god.

But, the burden of proof is on you and people who believe in the religion of global warming. It's not on the skeptics who can see through the hype, the politics, and the attempts to bully people into compliance at the risk of becoming infidels.

I've read many of the papers presented in this forum and frankly, the evidence is "thin" to say the least. Most things posted are summaries and conclusions. The results are preordained. Nobody, it seems, in the scientific community is taking a step back and asking a reasonable question like, "how do we know for sure that man is warming the earth beyond it's natural frequency of variation???".

You have concluded the global warming is man-made, is a problem, and that the "body of evidence" makes this so.

P.T. Barnum appreciated people who were so accepting. I think his research indicated that one was born every minute or so.......

NO IT IS NOT.

You astonish me here, once again stating blatantly and openly what the research is based on, what all its obbvious failings are, ALL THE WHILE happily admitting you have never once read a single page of a single one of these reports.

Please tell me exactly how you came to the conclusion that the 3-year Oxford study was based on a preconceived conclusion? Did fairies tell you?

If, as I have said again and again and you simply refuse to address, you ever read any of these studies, you would know that they do NOT base it on a preconceived conclusion, in fact exactly the opposite.

Let me repeat this for you. You are wrong, blatantly, and completely wrong. In chapter and verse. You are randomly guesing about a report and a science you have not read and know nothing about, yet speaking ith the self-assuredness of a prophet. I asked before, exactly what are your credentials in environmental science? Exactly what evidence do you have (and I mean ANY evidence, at ALL, EVER) that these reports are based on entirely preconceived conclusions?



No, No NO. I already adresed this twice, and you refused to even mention it, as if by pretending it was not there you could make it go away. The Oxford report is written in the entire context of a changing world, and the fact that we are at a warming stage in planetary evolution. That is one of the CENTRAL points of the report. ou would know that if you bothered reading it BEFORE making a blind attempt to invent flaws with it, none of which exist.



Again, I have said this before, and you just refuse to address it. My side of the debate is based on a massive body of evidence supported by enormous practical tests, basic evidence and fact, and countenanced by every major academic institution on the planet.

Your side of the argument has NO reports backing it, NO evidence supporting it and NO academic merit. In fact, you side of th debate has LordHelmet, as solid in his belief as he is in his refusal to read anything relevant on the topic.

And you accuse me of fundamentalism?

Yes, the burden of proof is on the environmental scientists, and they have DEMONSTRATED IT. Now the burden is on you to actually make some effort to read, educate yourself and look at the proof, rather then closing your eyes and pretending it is not there.



Come back to me when you have read the Oxford study, or any of the studies written by any of the major world universities in the last 6 years.

Come back when you have somthing substantive to contribute, some tiny single bit of evidence, any evidence at all, to oppose the massive pile of evidence gathered opposite you. In the meantime, I am very comfortable looking at the thread and seeing who is sitting on the side of near-universal scientific opinion, massive evidence and solid fact, and who is sitting along in the dark trying despratly to ignore the light.

You mean this one?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0127-01.htm

You are kidding aren't you? Proof? The academic people behind this study said that their limitation was "getting computer space" to test their "computer models". These people now claim that now only is the earth ending but it's ending twice as fast as they thought?

Don't you smell the signs of a faulty model? Politics?

Do you have a link to the "actual" study? All I can find on the web are conclusions, hyperbole, and chicken little statements that are consistent with the criticisms I've offered and are only promoted by web pages like "commondreams.org".

I'm interested in reviewing their methodology and how they factored in the impact of the sun, the oceans, and how many variables they actually looked at to come up with their hysterical conclusions.

I suspect that their reasoning is full of holes. They should be easy to find.

No, I don't. Can you point to anything in the research paper that smells of a faulty model or politics?


Why do you place the word "actual" in scare quotes? Do you believe that this study is in fact unreal? As for the link, it's right there on the web page you cite. It takes you to another page declaring that access to papers in Nature requires a subscription. Is there anything unreasonable or conspiratorial in that? If you wish, run down to your local library and look up the article. Or, for just one source, go to the IPCC site and look over some of their research.


You need a better search engine!

I see your search engine is no better than mine.

Vermillion said the "Oxford Study" PROVED that global warming is caused by man.

I want to read it. If he's right, it'll be the first document that I ever read that actually had that standard met.

But, I can't find it on the web.

Can anyone post a link to it in its entirety? Not the "analysis" of the findings done by some leftist web page?

As I explained, it is available in its entirety on the Nature website. You'll have to pay a subscription fee, but it's there. Or, if you wish to save some money, just run down to your local library -- most decent libraries keep Nature.

Alternatively, you might examine some of the many other studies on the web, such as the numerous IPCC studies I cited earlier.

Oh dear. I'd love to weigh in on this topic. However I must admit that I haven't completely read the 10 preceding pages. Here goes anyway. I must say that I did just skim them all to check and see if someone had already posted this fine paper. Even though it is rather old, I tend to agree with Dr. James Hansen's conclusion:



Global warming happens. Climate Change happens. Of these things, we are certain. Therefore, these occurances will not always or perhaps ever be the "result" of man. The issue is whether or not the efforts of man help it along. We should be concerned about that. It is irrational to claim that man can never be the cause. Man lives in the world. Man affects the world. We should be concerned about that, without being too hasty about saying that something is impossible. After all, acid rain would have been incomprehensible to humans a thousand years ago. The population is growing at an accelerated rate all the time.

The second most alarming thing about this whole issue, aside from Global Warming itself (which is happening regardless of what you think makes it), is that all the vehement anti-manmade-global-warming folks also seem to firmly be in the pro-industry deregulatory camp. No conflict of interest there....

A White House party for Lobbyists

White House Calls Editing Climate Files Part of Usual Review

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

Mired in Denial, Lost in the Present

Oil Firms Fund Climate Change Denial

1) Is the phenomena known as 'global warming' the result of man?

The atmosphere absorbs heat from the solar radiation that passes through it's layers. Solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface is reflected back upward and is further absorbed by the atmosphere. Atmospheric heat content influences many weather factors including the movement of air, the temperatures we experience, and precipitation. Oxygen (O2) and Ozone (O3) are what cool the planet enough for life to live on it. CO2 traps in heat, which evaporates water into the atmosphere. This is intuitively shown in the fact that Venus has no water and a surface temperature higher than Mercury(which is closer to the Sun).
Since man puts CO2 into the air, man is partially responsible for the planet heating up. I think that everyone can agree on this.
2) Is man's impact of far less importance than the normal dynamics of the planet?

Tough to say since accurate data has been collected for such a short period of time.

It seems another question has been discussed that is most important though:
3) Is man’s impact important enough to damage man’s ability to live on the Earth?

CO2 is 0.03 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. Venus’ atmosphere is ~96% CO2, and Mars is about 95% CO2. We know that we cannot live on Venus or Mars. There is no water(or frozen water), no oxygen in the atmosphere, and no ozone layer to block UV rays. If global warming melts the ice caps, it is not a big deal IMO. So the ocean level rises. We can squeeze in and continue forward. The problem starts when the oceans evaporate and leave H2O in the atmosphere. Water vapor increases the greenhouse effect, evaporating more ocean water. On top of that there is a ton of