Global Warming

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

"I haven't checked but I bet I'm right." ITD's abve post....

How do you know the data isn't there and if it was paid for by "tree huggers" if you haven't looked into it? Shouldn't you spend the time doing so before you choose to arque with folks that seem to have spent the time studying it, have an extensive backround and are knowlegdeable regarding the data?

First, to answer your questions, I "haven't looked into" whether the "tree huggers" (your term not mine) have paid for the Global Warming studies, I really don't care. As far as your second question (in bold above), are you referring to yourself or someone else posting here?

Global Warming is not a fact, humans causing Global Warming is not a fact, most of the experts don't call it a fact, they generally qualify their responses. What about the people with extensive background and are knowledgable regarding the data who say the data is flawed, the methods are flawed and the conclusions are flawed. How can you so easily ignore them? This has become politicised and the solutions proposed will bankrupt most of this country. Someone posted a few days ago that the "world is no longer flat" yet in the past that was the popular and political "truth" most people believed it. True science doesn't care about opinion or popular ideas. Please though, I urge you to unplug, bury your car(s) ( so no one else will use them) stop using fossil fuels or any other type of fuel that must be burned, if all the believers actually did this it should make a huge difference, according to your experts. But don't try to impose that on me based on your theories and opinion.

[VarneyPoint]

Actually, ITD, 99% of the scientific community has agreed that the earth is warming. There is very little dispute among believers and non-believers that the earth is actually getting hotter. I will grant you that there is SOME debate as to how much a role humans are playing. My own beliefs, research and convictions tell me and many others that humans and our activity play a role. I will grant you that not everything is known. How can it be? Isaac Newton invented physics in the 17th century. It took 300 years before Albert Einstein came along and revolutionized it. If we listened to you, people should have just rejected Newton because "it wasn't a fact." Are you advocating that we wait and wait and wait and wait until every last tiny detail is known about climate change? Should we just sit around hoping it isn't true? You know, some people think an avain influenza is going to strike the world at some point in the future. Should we do nothing because it's not yet a fact? Should we wait until a pandemic influenza virus strikes the world before doing something about or should we prepare and try to prevent it from happening?

It really is unfortunate that climate change has become a political issue. It shouldn't be. No reasonable person is suggesting you "bury" your car. I certainly have not told you or anyone else to do anything other than open your mind. Think about it this way, though. If I am wrong and human induced global warming turns out to be wrong, then oh well, I am wrong. BUT if you are wrong, and human induced global warming turns out to be right, are you and others like you going to look back and realize that you did in fact have the chance to do your part to help slow it down or even stop it?

If only one person reading this message board has become more aware of the issue of climate change and has decided to learn more and do their part to reduce their use, then I feel pretty good about it.

[jrc]

but I can't let facts be trampled.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

.... No reasonable person is suggesting you "bury" your car....

From Al Gore's Book:

...it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five year period...

that was 1992, only eleven years to go

Wikipedia also says this:

In 1992, the same year Gore published his book on the subject, Newsweek journalist Greg Easterbrook wrote about calls by Al Gore and Paul R. Ehrlich for journalistic self-censorship about criticisms of climate change, saying they had "ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in Gore's words, undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take." Easterbrook wrote: "Skeptical debate is supposed to be one of the strengths of liberalism; it's eerie to hear liberal environmentalists asserting that views they disagree with ought not to be heard."

It seems his censorship instructions were heard, loud and clear.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by jrc

but I can't let facts be trampled.



From Al Gore's Book:

...it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five year period...

that was 1992, only eleven years to go

Wikipedia also says this:

In 1992, the same year Gore published his book on the subject, Newsweek journalist Greg Easterbrook wrote about calls by Al Gore and Paul R. Ehrlich for journalistic self-censorship about criticisms of climate change, saying they had "ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in Gore's words, undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take." Easterbrook wrote: "Skeptical debate is supposed to be one of the strengths of liberalism; it's eerie to hear liberal environmentalists asserting that views they disagree with ought not to be heard."

It seems his censorship instructions were heard, loud and clear.

Thank you JRC

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

Actually, ITD, 99% of the scientific community has agreed that the earth is warming.

Another fact? There is no possible way you can know this yet you clearly state this as a fact.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

If we listened to you, people should have just rejected Newton because "it wasn't a fact." Are you advocating that we wait and wait and wait and wait until every last tiny detail is known about climate change? Should we just sit around hoping it isn't true? You know, some people think an avain influenza is going to strike the world at some point in the future. Should we do nothing because it's not yet a fact?

Another group of people acted on their "facts", the popular opinion of the time a few hundred years ago. People died, remember the Salem Witch Trials? Mob mentality seems like a good idea to the mob......

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

No reasonable person is suggesting you "bury" your car.

I'm going to keep driving my car. I said you should stop driving yours since you so fervently believe it causes Global Warming, act on your beliefs, lead by example.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

I certainly have not told you or anyone else to do anything other than open your mind.

So I have a closed mind because I don't agree with you, please give me break. Seems to me a person with an open mind would form an opinion based on both sides of an arguement. An open minded person would listen to the opposing viewpoints and not resort to name calling.

[SAMIAM]

Very nicely said,jrc......can't wait for the reply.

[VarneyPoint]

ITD,

Since you choose to selectively respond to only portions of my post, and arguably the least substantial points of it, thereby taking the whole thing out of context, I'll be brief.

1.) The earth is warming. It is a fact. The surface temp has risen 1 degree in the last 100 years. This is not debated. Everyone accepts it. As I already said in the previous post, there is debate as to the extent of human induced influence. I believe it to be significant, others believe it may be small or none. If you care to look it up, most institutions with an opinion on global warming will back up the claim that the earth is warming regardless of who is to blame. I'll leave it at that.

2.) Comparing the Salem witch hunt of the 1600s to a scientific debate is hardly a useful or relevant analogy. Can't you come up with something better?

3.) I'm glad you are going to keep driving your car because for the 3rd time, I haven't told you to stop driving it. Despite believing that man is the major cause of global warming, I am also a realist and recognize that we simply cannot stop on a dime.

4.) I am leading by example, I am trying to increase the overall awareness of this important issue. As I stated in my last post, if only one person reading this thread begins to think differently about the issue, then I am happy to have helped. Have my posts been so inflammatory as to keep you up at night? As I said, if I am wrong, then no harm done. But if you are wrong, will you be able to say the same thing?

5.) I certainly did not "name call." I did not mean to imply that you had a closed mind, as I never actually used those words. I simply am expressing my hope that everyone, not just you, ITD, will find it useful to challenge their personal convictions.

6.) Why not enlighten us as to your personal opinion on the subject? So far, all I really know is that you don't believe global warming is fact and constantly use the ambiguity of the situation to beat back anyone who posits otherwise. I have actually agreed with you to a certain extent that everything is not fact. There are some debatable issues and not everything is known. I have challenged you with relevant examples that you have not responded to. Do you have anything else to offer? I noticed you once posted that you really don't care to look into who pays for the research on climate change. So if you don't care to learn more about the process, why are you here posting?

SAMIAM,
I'm glad I can be so entertaining...

Al Gore was a politician at the time, he obviously had an agenda. Also, the wikipedia, while great for getting general information, is not a great resource when it comes to accuracy for scientific claims as it is not subject to editorial review.

By the way, in 1992, had work actually started with real funding on producing a new type of engine, I'm almost sure we would be there either now or in a few years time. Honestly, it took 3 to 4 years to invent the atomic bomb in the 1940s and they had to do in complete secrecy. If we had some real leadership on the issue, I'd bet we could get ourselves off of oil which for economic reasons would be great (I'm sure everyone has noticed how high gas is), for security reasons would be great, and environmental issues would be even better. Guess I wasn't brief afterall. Sorry.


Websites for people in the crowd:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...ent/index.html

http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/...glob_warm.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

[secondcurve]

Varney Point:

I tend to agree that global warming is a serious issue and that many people have their heads buried in the sand. The good news is that before it becomes an uncontrollable problem, I feel that we are going to see astronomical oil prices which will curb demand and speed up the search for alternative energy sources, which I hope will have a less of an impact on the earth. I fear that this transition could be quite bumpy (if not much worse), but the end result should be more earth friendly.

Unfortunately, the only way that global warming and energy independence for the USA will be addressed, is through sky high oil prices. The good news/bad news is $100.00 a barrel oil is on our door step. Now, if only it could wait until October since running my 225 4-stroke Yamaha this summer is going to cost me a small fortune!

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Varney Point:

I tend to agree that global warming is a serious issue and that many people have their heads buried in the sand. The good news is that before it becomes an uncontrollable problem, I feel that we are going to see astronomical oil prices which will curb demand and speed up the search for alternative energy sources, which I hope will have a less of an impact on the earth. I fear that this transition could be quite bumpy (if not much worse), but the end result should be more earth friendly.

Unfortunately, the only way that global warming and energy independence for the USA will be addressed, is through sky high oil prices. The good news/bad news is $100.00 a barrel oil is on our door step. Now, if only it could wait until October since running my 225 4-stroke Yamaha this summer is going to cost me a small fortune!

While I don't agree with seconcurves conclusion that global warming is a serious issue,I think he'\she's right on with high oil prices actually being a good thing in the long run.This will no doubt help speed the research towards alternative fuel while making current ones under developement(hydrogen) much more price competitive and therefore more incentive to accelerate the progress in these fuels.While I don't like the rise in gas prices,we have become so used to low gas prices relative to the rest of the western world,with Europeans having been paying $4-5 a gallon for years.I think the "good times" are behind us.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

ITD,

Since you choose to selectively respond to only portions of my post, and arguably the least substantial points of it, thereby taking the whole thing out of context, I'll be brief.

Ok, I'll respond point by point below, you obviously think my point that your facts are actually not facts is "least substantial" I'm not sure this will do any good, but I'll try.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

1.) The earth is warming. It is a fact. The surface temp has risen 1 degree in the last 100 years. This is not debated. Everyone accepts it. As I already said in the previous post, there is debate as to the extent of human induced influence. I believe it to be significant, others believe it may be small or none. If you care to look it up, most institutions with an opinion on global warming will back up the claim that the earth is warming regardless of who is to blame. I'll leave it at that.

Exerpt from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1017204.stm


Data from weather stations on land and at sea have been used to reconstruct variations in the Earth's annual-mean surface temperature over the past century.
These show a warming in the range 0.3-0.60C over the period. But the sceptics doubt whether much, or any, of the warming can be linked to increases in C02.
They make the point that much of the data comes from weather stations close to towns and cities. The warming may simply reflect the heat associated with the growth of those towns and cities. Any "real" warming that may exist once this bias has been properly extracted falls well within the "noise" of natural climate variability.


And from: McIntyre and McKitrick

In a recent paper

1 (herein MM03), we developed an updated version of the climate proxy
data set used by Mann et. al.2 (MBH98) to compute a Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature
index. The most significant changes were the replacement of obsolete versions of proxy data
used in MBH98 with current versions from the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
(WDCP) and the use of conventional principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce networks of
tree ring chronologies to regional aggregates using the maximum period in which all sites were
available. Applying the methodology of MBH98 to the new data yielded an NH temperature
index in which the values in the 15th century exceeded those in the late 20th century, thereby
contradicting the conclusions in MBH98 of a unique 20th century climate warming

So the point: It is not a fact the earth is warming, everyone does not accept the "fact" that the earth is warming, it is debated, you are wrong to say it is not debated.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

2.) Comparing the Salem witch hunt of the 1600s to a scientific debate is hardly a useful or relevant analogy. Can't you come up with something better?

Sorry you don't like my analogy, but a witch hunt is a witch hunt. I think it's very relevant in that if anyone dared to disagree with the popular theory they were ostracized and threatened with the same fate as the "witches". Some things are timeless, if you don't like it or agree, I can't help you.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

3.) I'm glad you are going to keep driving your car because for the 3rd time, I haven't told you to stop driving it. Despite believing that man is the major cause of global warming, I am also a realist and recognize that we simply cannot stop on a dime.

For the third time, I never said you told me to stop driving my car, I said you should stop driving yours.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

4.) I am leading by example, I am trying to increase the overall awareness of this important issue. As I stated in my last post, if only one person reading this thread begins to think differently about the issue, then I am happy to have helped. Have my posts been so inflammatory as to keep you up at night? As I said, if I am wrong, then no harm done. But if you are wrong, will you be able to say the same thing?

Ah, but here is where you are really off base, you claim "if I am wrong, then no harm done", nothing could be further from the truth. What you advocate, (drastically reducing CO2 emmissions) will cripple our economy.
Just about every usefull bit of work done in this country requires the production of "greenhouse" gas. Your theories and their solutions have a huge cost associated with them. Who do you think would end up paying those costs? Why you and I would.

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

5.) I certainly did not "name call." I did not mean to imply that you had a closed mind, as I never actually used those words. I simply am expressing my hope that everyone, not just you, ITD, will find it useful to challenge their personal convictions.

"I certainly have not told you or anyone else to do anything other than open your mind."

There it is in quotes, no you didn't use the words "closed mind", but you strongly insinuated it. Projected it perhaps? I challenge my personal convictions almost daily, how about you?

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

6.) Why not enlighten us as to your personal opinion on the subject? So far, all I really know is that you don't believe global warming is fact and constantly use the ambiguity of the situation to beat back anyone who posits otherwise. I have actually agreed with you to a certain extent that everything is not fact. There are some debatable issues and not everything is known. I have challenged you with relevant examples that you have not responded to. Do you have anything else to offer? I noticed you once posted that you really don't care to look into who pays for the research on climate change. So if you don't care to learn more about the process, why are you here posting?

I think my position is quite clear on this, Global warming is not a fact, "everyone" does not accept it as you stated above (contradicting yourself).

Who is being beaten back here? I don't agree with you and you seem to get very worked up, trust me I am losing no sleep over this. You seem to associate who funds a study with the veracity of the study. Does this mean that every corporate sponsored study is tainted? Every study sponsored by special interest environmental groups is unbiased? What else do I need to offer? You keep harping on the point that I don’t care to look up who sponsored the research that supports Global Warming, if I do will it change your mind? I doubt it because unless you are paranoid it really doesn’t matter. I have provided links and in this post quotes. I have provided the links in previous quotes, if that’s not a response to your “challenges” then I don’t know what is. Why do I post in this thread? I post because I see people posting theories as accepted undisputed fact when indeed they are not. I can’t help it if they get upset when I point out their mistakes.


Ah, I've run out of time, I will address the balance of your post later.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint

....Al Gore was a politician at the time, he obviously had an agenda. Also, the wikipedia, while great for getting general information, is not a great resource when it comes to accuracy for scientific claims as it is not subject to editorial review.

By the way, in 1992, had work actually started with real funding on producing a new type of engine, I'm almost sure we would be there either now or in a few years time. Honestly, it took 3 to 4 years to invent the atomic bomb in the 1940s and they had to do in complete secrecy. If we had some real leadership on the issue, I'd bet we could get ourselves off of oil which for economic reasons would be great (I'm sure everyone has noticed how high gas is), for security reasons would be great, and environmental issues would be even better. Guess I wasn't brief afterall. Sorry....

Just to address a few issues:

Al Gore is still a politician, he has no scientific schooling, he has done no scientific research, so all his opinions are merely his political opinion of studies he has read. (research in this context means making measurments in the field)

I used Wiki for quotes from his book and quotes about his politics, not for science. Do you doubt the quotes?

Building a new engine technology is really just a small part of project. The difficult problem is the energy source. Even at $100 a barrel, there are no cost effective and politically viable alternatives to petroleum.

[SIKSUKR]

Here's some food for thought for people who beleive this is absolute fact.

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000027.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000023.html

And here's how our wonderfull liberal media reports it:

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000010.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000066.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000056.html
My point with this is not to prove or disprove theories,only that that's exactly what we are dealing with here when we talk of man induced climate warming,Theories and what if's.There is a lot more research to be done before Ill jump on that bandwagon.

[VarneyPoint]

Alright ITD,

Let's just agree to disagree. I would love to respond to everything, but I simply don't have the time to go through everything as I am sure you don't either. The real substance of this thread has been lost with our back and forth as it has degenerated into a debate of semantics, tone, implied points, perceived insults and the like. I am not about to change your mind and you are not about to change mine. I get your point, it's not fact, fine. Our posts have gotten too long and convoluted for anything of substance to really come out of it. I trust the people on this board to make up their own minds despite our banter which is quickly approaching childish levels. This will be my last post on the issue. I'll let you have the last word and let others post a little.

[Great Idea]

Some of us appreciate your attempt to point to scientific data and write clear, concise posts. Your efforts to present science and sites that support the data with actual research rather than "opinion sites" and so called conservative rants by so called experts who work for the big oil/coal companies will hopefully aid in educating those who are open to study and learning. Don't waste your time however attempting to debate the issue here. The responses are always predictable and lacking any real effort or research into the issue at hand. The sea level could be rising , tornadoes ripping thru the state and temps could be up 10-15 degrees and these posters would still be saying it wasn't real and we had nothing to do with it. 2005 was THE warmest overall average global temperature in 10,000 years.....most of us would like to know why and if there were things that man could do to slow this trend. Your/our "opponents" here attack rather than spend the hours it would take to really absorb the data that exists and THEN form an opinion . They had their opinion perhaps since birth and will continue to look at only the "data" that comforts and protects there self serving lifestyle.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

Some of us appreciate your attempt to point to scientific data and write clear, concise posts. Your efforts to present science and sites that support the data with actual research rather than "opinion sites" and so called conservative rants by so called experts who work for the big oil/coal companies will hopefully aid in educating those who are open to study and learning. Don't waste your time however attempting to debate the issue here. The responses are always predictable and lacking any real effort or research into the issue at hand. The sea level could be rising , tornadoes ripping thru the state and temps could be up 10-15 degrees and these posters would still be saying it wasn't real and we had nothing to do with it. 2005 was THE warmest overall average global temperature in 10,000 years.....most of us would like to know why and if there were things that man could do to slow this trend. Your/our "opponents" here attack rather than spend the hours it would take to really absorb the data that exists and THEN form an opinion . They had their opinion perhaps since birth and will continue to look at only the "data" that comforts and protects there self serving lifestyle.

You people are priceless!!!!!! Here is another example of your "open minded", "non-inflammatory", "obviously scientific", "debate" tactics.

Sorry Varney Point, I really wanted to let you have the last word here, but then the above appeared I just couldn't resist.

[Great Idea]

ITD,

Until you do your homework and study the subject and present some info that isn't from tainted sources then the joke is on you and everything I said above is supported by your own responses and resistance to do some reading. Varney Point has and I have only asked you to study the research and you haven't done it. We told you why we held the opinion we do and Varney point provided you with links that demonstrate actual scientific studies. You won't read or consider them so unfortunely that appears to be closed minded on your part. Truth hurts. Further you provided some data and we unlike yourself looked at it and considered it. There was no scientific verification of the data and further it was pointed out by Winnigirl the source is a paid lobbyist from the oil/coal industry. We looked at your evidence , researched it and responded. That is fairly open minded? Yes? We keep posting our arquements supported by real science and actual statistics that can be verified if you read the studies. You counter telling us that its bull and liberal noise/hysteria yet you won't do the work to study it? Thats not priceless or funny..... just kind of sad. Keep laughing ...... hopefully some of us will pick up the slack for you and do something constructive to educate others and actually improve the situation for the future generations.

[MAXUM]

Everyone.... global warming is a THEROY not proven scientific FACT.

Let me put this in perspective... E=MC2 is fact. There is not enough evidence to suggest global warming is either fact or fiction at this time, or any time in the next few million years period.

The true facts are as follows:

Scientists on both sides of the arguement produce all kinds of evidence to support thier points, however how OBJECTIVE are thier studies??? Some may be based on fact but there is simply not enough data to extactly know what temperature trends were say 1000 or 10,000 years ago. Oh one can speculate or interpret evidence to estimate trends, but estimates are not hard numbers. This is why global warming will remain a THEORY from probably the next 100,000 years or so. Even at 100K years, a mere moment in time considering the age of the earth. What is fact is that evidence from the past show we've had wild global temperature changes long before the internal combustion engine was invented. Hmm.... explain that!

Politicians cherry pick the scientists that find in thier favor to bolster thier ideas of regulation and legislation. If they can't find them they will "fund" a study with OUR money to find evidence to support thier position.

I resort back to my original point, I could care less if global warming is fact or fiction, however we all have a responsibility to do what we REASONABLY can do to take care of the world we live in since it is the only one we got. If that means investing in alternative resources fine, lets spend the money creating something useful, not more studies that are tainted at best and prove nothing. Think of the billions of dollars that could have gone to real research in developing alternative power instead of some long forgotten "study". Lets all move on from senseless debate and invest in a %^&$ solution!

Enough said.......

[ApS]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

"...Everyone.... global warming is a THEORY not proven scientific FACT..."

In 1998, Popular Science stated that Global Warming is a FACT. Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did likewise. This year, the President's own Council on such things said the same.

Want a neutral report? Take Swiss scientists:

"...In order to be able to deal with the negative effects of climate change in the short term and avoid them in the long term, Swiss Re proposes two strategies: the first is climate protection, which is necessary to prevent global warming from accelerating to such a degree that humans are no longer able to adjust. This approach includes reducing the degree of human intervention in the natural climatic system. Secondly, society as a whole must learn to anticipate changeable climates..." http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwsw...l?OpenDocument

The two schools:

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".

While I defer to Limbaugh's acumen in politics, I strongly disagree with his broadcasting of misleading environmental news: Once, I attempted to "call him on it". (Literally).

At the time, he was discussing "Ozone-depletion", a problem that didn't appear until Andes Mountain tourists were getting sunburned in just fifteen minutes! Scientists rapidly determined the fact of Ozone depletion and Congress dragged itself into outlawing the worst of the Chloro-Flouro-Carbons. (Abbreviated "CFCs" — found in air conditioning systems.)

As to Global Warming, Senators defeated the Kyoto Treaty 99-0. There's little question that Congress did the right thing for Western economies: China (not affected by Kyoto) is discussing oil drilling in the Gulf -- off Cuba! On the other hand, Iran (with huge oil reserves) could be hit with UN sanctions. (So don't go looking for fuel prices heading downwards).

There are too many "moneyed interests" to reduce Humanity's effects on Global Warming; but take a look at this lake as a microcosm of this planet.

Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?

[jeffk]

Climate fluctuations, warming and cooling, are normal and have been occurring before man became a significant player in the world.

The methodology of global temperature measurement has only become precise in the last few decades. Measurements prior to that become more questionable the further back you go. Even current measurements may be influenced by the local "heat island effects. The amount of warming (.6 C, 1.1 F over the last century) is in the "noise" of our ability to measure temperature accurately.

Computer models suffer greatly from GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). There is still no model that is able to accurately project climate changes.

CO2 is not the most important contributor to "greenhouse" effects; water vapor and oxygen are more significant. The amount of CO2 that is contributed by human activities is disputable and is probably less than that contributed via "natural" causes. More CO2 may be a positive contribution to the biosphere.

Overall, climate is extremely complex and we do not know how all the components work and interact.

Here is a link to a discussion of some of the issues of interest:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

This is a summary of the points in the discussion:

• The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
• The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
• The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
• The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
• There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
• The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
• Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
• Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
• Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
• There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
• Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
• Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems

I don't deny that some warming may be going on. However, the amount of warming, the cause of it, whether it is a problem, and how much we can control it are very unsettled issues. The current proposed costs for "fixing" it are enormous and very real with very uncertain benefit. We need significantly better information before committing enormous resources to this questionable effort.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

{snipped} Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?

Here we go again, are you going to show us that petroleum ring around the lake picture again? Still waiting for the answer from the last time you pulled out that picture.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".
....

1) Wrong. What's your definition of a scientist, a person who agrees with global warming?
2) Like Al Gore, Rush has no scientific training so he is only parroting someone else's research. Let's judge the science not the politician or entertainer who point to it.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?
....

The biggest effect fossil fuel has had on Lake Winnipesaukee is MTBE getting into the drinking water. Since MTBE is soon to be banned that problem should be gone. Other problems from gas and oil entering the water should be helped by the changeover to fuel injection and the change away from two-stroke engines. A true lake lover would work hard to speed this up. See this article:

http://www.news10.net/storyfull1.asp?id=8057

The important sentence:
...In the five years since the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency prohibited most two-stroke engines, those residual gas products have declined between 80 and 90 percent...

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

In 1998, Popular Science stated that Global Warming is a FACT. Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did likewise. This year, the President's own Council on such things said the same.

Want a neutral report? Take Swiss scientists:



The two schools:

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".

While I defer to Limbaugh's acumen in politics, I strongly disagree with his broadcasting of misleading environmental news: Once, I attempted to "call him on it". (Literally).

At the time, he was discussing "Ozone-depletion", a problem that didn't appear until Andes Mountain tourists were getting sunburned in just fifteen minutes! Scientists rapidly determined the fact of Ozone depletion and Congress dragged itself into outlawing the worst of the Chloro-Flouro-Carbons. (Abbreviated "CFCs" — found in air conditioning systems.)

As to Global Warming, Senators defeated the Kyoto Treaty 99-0. There's little question that Congress did the right thing for Western economies: China (not affected by Kyoto) is discussing oil drilling in the Gulf -- off Cuba! On the other hand, Iran (with huge oil reserves) could be hit with UN sanctions. (So don't go looking for fuel prices heading downwards).

There are too many "moneyed interests" to reduce Humanity's effects on Global Warming; but take a look at this lake as a microcosm of this planet.

Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?

Wow - very interesting indeed.

So Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is a real expert on the subject....

Popular Science may very well have published supporting information for the THEORY of global warming, that does not make it scientific fact.

The President's council may have supported the THEORY of global warming, but that does not make it fact.

As I have said before you can find as many people supporting the idea that global warming is a fact as you can that say it's not. Fact is the earth has experienced climatic changes naturally a LONG time before humans were around driving internal combustion engines. Matter of fact it has been estimated that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens threw more greenhouse gasses in the air than all the emmissions combined of internal combustion engines since they were first invented. Hmm.... better put a catelytic converter on every volcano across the planet then huh?

Ah yes Ozone depleation, I was watching NOVA a couple months back where they have discovered through ice core samples that there has been historically a fluctuating hole in the OZONE for thousands of years.

Personally I could care less what gas prices do, if they remain high then just maybe that will finally get people thinking about conservation and new replacement technologies. Again I say invest the money in inovation not more studies that are just nothing but theory and estimations. Fact is there is no way to know for sure how much man has effected the climate. What is going on now may very well be a normal warming cycle and has nothing what so ever to do with fossil fuels. There is simply not enough data to know for sure.

Finally, the only thing that is wrecking Lake Winnipesaukee is milfoil, out of date septic systems, construction that is effecting run off and fertilizer used on the sprawling lawns infront of all the mc-mansions. None of these things has anything to do with internal combustion engines!

[JPC]

Did anyone watch NOVA this past Sunday? Interesting subjet on the dimming sun and how it applies to global warming.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Finally, the only thing that is wrecking Lake Winnipesaukee is milfoil, out of date septic systems, construction that is effecting run off and fertilizer used on the sprawling lawns infront of all the mc-mansions. None of these things has anything to do with internal combustion engines!

I think MAXUM has correctly established our immediate Lake concerns. But I'd like to also add it's not just the lawns at the McMansions, but all lawns where owners are fertilizing. hundreds of small lawn owners believe their use of fertilizers (even these so-called "natural" fertilizers) are not really impacting the lake. Here's the bottom line.....what's good for grass is good for algae and undesirable underwater plants.

[Bear Islander]

I was at the North Pole last week and I ran into some scientists that were part of the Polar Buoy project. They claim that the data they are getting from the buoys show alarming temp increases in the arctic. However there are theories that can explain this other than global warming.

Their pet theory was about disruptions in the polar stream that circles under the ice pack.

[skisox24]

I will concede to having maintained a healthy scepticism of the global warming hysteria. Yet my ego is humble enough to recognize its possibility.

I highly recommend a 2004 fast-paced adventure novel entitled State of Fear by Michael Chrichton. Its a great read, and its central theme pulsates with the very same issues that have been the essense of this thread. Yes, the novel is fiction, but throughout the story the author references factual footnotes that support the contentions made within the story's plot.

At the end of the book the author includes a section with his personal conclusions which he arrived at following his three year period of dedicated research that stands behind his intricate story.

Its a great beach book for the summer, and it might even provoke some enlightented thought on this controversial issue!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

ITD,

Until you do your homework and study the subject and present some info that isn't from tainted sources then the joke is on you and everything I said above is supported by your own responses and resistance to do some reading. Varney Point has and I have only asked you to study the research and you haven't done it. We told you why we held the opinion we do and Varney point provided you with links that demonstrate actual scientific studies. You won't read or consider them so unfortunely that appears to be closed minded on your part. Truth hurts. Further you provided some data and we unlike yourself looked at it and considered it. There was no scientific verification of the data and further it was pointed out by Winnigirl the source is a paid lobbyist from the oil/coal industry. We looked at your evidence , researched it and responded. That is fairly open minded? Yes? We keep posting our arquements supported by real science and actual statistics that can be verified if you read the studies. You counter telling us that its bull and liberal noise/hysteria yet you won't do the work to study it? Thats not priceless or funny..... just kind of sad. Keep laughing ...... hopefully some of us will pick up the slack for you and do something constructive to educate others and actually improve the situation for the future generations.

Oh no, no, no, you're not drawing me down this road again. Don't tell me what I have and haven't studied. Look up McIntyre and McKitrick. I've called no one any names, unlike you. Fact vs. theory, look it up in the dictionary. I don't buy your premises. When you educate others please teach the whole truth, not just your slant. And like it or not, you're priceless.

Well said Maxum, all except the e=mc^2 part...........nevermind, I still like the way you think.

[Winnigirl]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Here's some food for thought for people who beleive this is absolute fact.

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000027.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000023.html

And here's how our wonderfull liberal media reports it:

http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000010.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000066.html
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000056.html
My point with this is not to prove or disprove theories,only that that's exactly what we are dealing with here when we talk of man induced climate warming,Theories and what if's.There is a lot more research to be done before Ill jump on that bandwagon.

I just want to reiterate that Richard Lindzen, who is one of the experts referred to in your first link, has ties to the coal/oil industries as Varney Point mentioned in a post dated 4/21. In the 1990s, Richard Lindzen received $2500 a DAY in consultant fees from coal/oil interests. As a matter of fact, according to Ross Gelbspan's Boiling Point book, Lindzen does not deny this.