And thaks Ginata, for such a well informed post (#24)

~SDC~

vincible:

I agree there should be off-topic discussions here. I'm just concerned that the complexity of this issue might not fit in with a gaming forum. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the debate that will occur on this thread, but it might turn some people off when they are looking for an answer to why the Drengin are kicking their butts! LOL

I would whole-heartedly agree we could use an off-topic forum, like the Strat or Mods forums.

Ginata well informed?? -- none of this is hard science. It's all rhetoric and phony statistics and studies pushed forward by self-serving pseudo-scientists with political agendas.

you are talking about 50 millions years of current geo-climactic history by quoting small percentage
changes over the last few years and extrapolating the changes over the next hundred. fer gosh sake comparing the last 3 years to the last 20 years is so silly it isn't worth mentioning. as is comparing supposed changes over 100 years and comparing them to changes over 20,000 years.

explain how they calculated the average earth's temperature to the 10th of a degree around the entire globe -- in 1898? have you actually read scientific papers form the 1800's? In the absence of the demonstrable, repeatable observation that is the basis of scientific method, you substitute models and assumptions and wild extrapolations.

you are talking about 30% changes in factors that *start* with less than 1% effect (that's 0.3% effect overall), but you neglect to mention that the presence of c02 has *never* been directly linked to anything so-called global warming effect.

You are quoting anecdotal evidence (disease outbreaks in the pacific islands fer gosh sake) as though it were a proven scientific fact with predictable consequences.

example

study 1: women with breast implants are more depressed.
study 2: women with breast implants are less depressed when other factors are considered.
conclusion: we don't know dick about the depression levels of women with breast implants.

soft science should never be the basis for analysis or policy. Anything can be proven using soft science. The Nazi's used soft science to prove anti-semitism was essential for the survival of the species.

It depresses me that people don't even understand the difference between science and pseudo-science, and how dangerous the latter is.

This is simply wrong. You can get temperature estimates going back millions of years. Obviously we have the most detailed measurements for the last few tens of years, but there are an enormous number of indirect methods you can use and they are generally considered fairly good.

I'll describe just one method here. The chemical composition of the ocean is controlled by the global temperature. Most people know that water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Somewhat lesser known is that there are two types (isotopes) of oxygen, one with a mass slightly greater than the other. The heavier type is less likely to evaporate than the light one, so the heavy type gets concentrated within seawater, while the light one tends to be evaporated and spends more time in the atmosphere, or snowed out at the polar ice caps. This effect depends on the temperature.

So the relative abundance of these types of oxygen in the ocean is determined by the global temperature. Fossils of marine organisms contain oxygen in a ratio that reflects the ratio of the water in which they lived. So we can measure the relative amount of the different types of oxygen in these fossils. This gives us the concentration of the different types of oxygen in the ocean, which in turn gives us the global temperature for as long as we have fossils--which is many tens of millions of years.

Obviously it's not quite this simple... there are certainly complications. But in short, yes, we can infer global temperature well past the last twenty years. There are a whole bunch of methods, and their results do agree with each other.



Your own article says this effect may account for "as much as a quarter of all observed global warming." The other 75+% they leave to greenhouse gases.



yup, actually you understate its effect.



This is just not true. Without water vapor the earth would be very, very cold--sub-arctic temperatures everywhere--so if scientists really were ignoring water vapor their calculations would make no sense--the earth would be a frozen ball of ice. They certainly wouldn't be talking about global warming.

It's water vapor and other gases that bring the earth's average temperature from -18 C to the approximately 15 C which it is today.

In fact water vapor is an important amplifier of climate change. Cold air is drier than warm air. If the planet warms up a little, then the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases, which in turn increases the warming effect due to water. So it's actually a positive feedback.

So if you cause a little bit of warming with say carbon dioxide, you cause a lot of warming due to this feedback.
[Message Edited]

[Message Edited]

" generally considered fairly good." -- pure BS
you cannot get tenths of degree fluctuations (of atmospheric temperature) over hundreds of years from fossil records -- you get degree fluctuations (in water temperature) over thousands of years. again, you are comparing data of wildly differing resolutions as though they were equivalent.

" Your own article says this effect may account for "as much as a quarter of all observed global warming." The other 75+% they leave to greenhouse gases."

clever bit of misdirection. actually is says:

"found soot is twice as potent as carbon dioxide"

but my point is much more subtle. the subject is again circular. Global warming is "proved" by anecdotal evidence including melting of snow and ice (not by one piece of hard evidence). but if the ice is melting from soot and albedo issues, it becomes a cause of global warming, rather than effect of global warming.

-- soot causes heat retention causes surface melting causes concentration of soot causes lowering of albedo -- causes global warming. Not the other way around.

You can't have the same thing as both the cause (melting causes albedo lowering) and the result (melting caused by temperature increase)!! This circular logic is what is so frustrating with the things you put forward as proofs.

"So if you cause a little bit of warming with say carbon dioxide, you cause a lot of warming due to this feedback. " not proven. period.

the self maintaining feedback systems that have kept this planet within the liveable range are not even remotely understood. isolating one or two details, comparing them using phony politically motivated data, is the worst sort of soft science.

Prove it, or forget it. I am not saying it doesn't exist, I am saying soft science and worshiping at the alter of eco-centrism is dangerous and politically motivated.

Well, it depends on what standard you're using to determine "pretty good". Obviously if you insist on fine enough resolution, then it's not "pretty good". But it's good enough to know that it's hotter now than it's been in tens of thousands of years, and good enough to know that the rate of increase is faster than it's been in tens of thousands of years. That's pretty good in my book.



I think you underestimate the state of science here. Of course fossils alone won't do it, but there are a whole bunch of different complementary techniques with different strengths and weaknesses. Fossil records' strengths are that they allow you to look way, way back in time, and I chose that in response to your remarks about the difficulty of knowing temperature even a century ago.

To be honest I'm not sure what the accepted uncertainty is within fossil-based measurements. Can you point me to a source for your statements?



Actually it says both things. Quote the article completely and the apparent contradiction between the statements becomes clear:

"found soot is twice as potent as carbon dioxide in changing global surface air temperatures in the Arctic and the Northern Hemisphere."

No contradiction between them--one is global, the other isn't. And let's note that the effect is far stronger in areas with year-round snow, ie the Arctic and the high mountains, so it's even more of a local phenomenon than is implied in that statement.



The point I was making earlier with my fossil comments is that it's NOT just proved with that. You have data from gases contained in ice cores in Greenland and other Arctic regions where fallen snow doesn't melt. You have the chemical composition of sediments, particularly in geologically stable lakes, or perhaps silt, or in caves. You can analyze glacial deposits. Biologically, you've got zillions of fossils to analyze chemically--not just animals, but single celled organisms and even pollen. You can figure out changes in sea level. You can look at coral growths, or tree rings, or deposition at the bottom of lakes, to get a year-by-year picture or sometimes even season-by-season picture. And so on.



Now obviously I can't prove anything on the forum... neither of has the time, or the background, necessary to look at all the raw data and understand it. But look at the scientific community. Even among global warming skeptics, very few people, if anybody, argues that climate change isn't occurring. Some who oppose taking action to limit greenhouse gases argue that the observed change is caused by natural cycles and not by man. Some argue about uncertainties in future climate trends--they say it might not continue to warm. Some argue that fighting it isn't worth the economic cost, or even that its effects will be generally benign. But virtually no one disputes that some warming is occurring.

Max . . .

Huh? . . . Um I thought the method of deduction (of climate change) would be well known . . . but as I read through your posts I come to realize mabye your not as educated in these matters as I have assumed, my mistake, sorry.

Ever heard of Ice Core Analysis? We have a team of Australian Scientists doing some studies in the Southern Pole (Antartica) at the moment. It involves a spectural analysis of the gases found in several drilled ice cores at various isolated locations (The ice samples are reputed to be a perfect record of environmental influences and conditions per unit time for that region of the planet, admitedley the deduction part of it is applying that information to make inferences about the Earths general climate). A correlation between the data obtained from each core is calculated to ensure validity of the gas composition for each epoch. Now several sites around the world have had the oportunity to compare data! Yeay!

It seems a logical and acurate way to verify climate change and conditions of our geo-sphere over time.

As far as I am aware all the data from this method as well as sedimentry analysis of exposed regions of ancient rock support (with a high degree of correlation over 98%) the general trends in the Earth's climate predating the dinasours. You do have the internet don't you or perhaps some teachers at school you could ask about how scientific research works?

Scientific discussion should be passionate but I find the general tone of your last few posts a bit disappointing in that they are closed minded and condecending, even perhaps a little paranoid.

I respect your right to your opinion but your dancing down information from many reputable sources. This does make you seem a bit foolish, if your just out to clown around and mess with what this topic's turned into that's fine . . . if you want to play devils advocate thats your choice, but I must say you could be doing a better job of it though rather than saying its all crap.

If I and others are mistaken please show us the nature of our ignorance as you would a child . . .

[Message Edited]

Vincable,
I careful reading of my posts will not show that I disagree with the concept of climate change. my issues are with the misapplication of statistical data and the use of anecdotal data in place of scientific fact, the whole colored with a political agenda and a general Earth First moronic parrotting.

I do not dispute such evidence indicating various temperature measurements have changed over thousands of years, or over hundreds of years, or between yesterday and today.

1) I dispute the erroneous correlations between ten thousand year trends, hundred year trends, and 20 year trends.

2) I dispute that we know for a fact that greenhouse gas emmissions from industrial society are the cause. (not that they are the cause, but that we know for a fact). Albedo issues, solar radiation issues, core temperature fluctuations, magnetic pole variations, ocean current shifts, and whale populations all contribute. The sum total effect CO2 has compared to all these other factors is laughable.

3) I certainly take exception to such headlines as scream "Global Warming claimed 170,000 Lives Last Year!"

Look at the chart on the EPA website here http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html
and you can see why there was an ice age scare in the 50's. My god people!! What if we had taken quick action there and added sulfur or something silly in the gasoline to prevent the impending doom of an ice age!! Get some perspective.

~~~~~~~
"Of the 0.55 degree Celsius warming since 1860, 0.36 degrees Celsius have occurred since 1970, and the solar irradiance can only account for less than a third of this rise"

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0001B1C3-D730-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&pageNumber=2&catID=3

~~~~

Ahh, I've got a few days worth of stuff to catch up on...





You're right. That is an example of a problem. What's the problem? You're putting words into people's mouths - and not just me, but everyone you denigrated in your post. That's a bad habit to get into - I suggest you try to break it.

(Did I even mention Americans?)


Just for the record, I don't believe most Americans are selfish louts (though I'm sure there's a few, just like anywhere else on Earth). And I'm sure that the people making decisions are made aware of environmental issues. Years ago, they might have pushed through a new plan, and thought "to hell with the environment". Today, they'll order an Environmental Impact Survey or somesuch before they proceed. The problem is, the study will usually say "this will cause environmental problems A, B, and C, they can be fixed for $X extra". The decision-maker will spend some time weighing the alternatives, but will often just push through the exact same plan.

Notice that I said "often", not "always". The idea of companies being good "corporate citizens" has picked up in recent years. Of course, lots of execs have different views of what that means, exactly. Here's a couple examples:


* Some run their business as usual, but donate some profits to a charity. (A few just think of that as part of their marketing campaign - "Hey, we donate to charity. We're decent folks. Buy our stuff!")

* Targeted community projects - NRMA (they do road service and insurance here) runs a project aimed at reducing youth crimes, like stealing cars. This has all the benefits of a charity donation, except they could also get an extra payoff in the future (less stolen cars means less car insurance payouts means more profit).

* Change the way they do business. How much they change is a matter of degree. Buying "green power" from electricity companies is a good example. Coca Cola does that here in Australia, I think IBM does it in America, and there's a fair few other companies who do it too.

For companies like IBM and Coca Cola, this is a small-scale change - it costs them a bit extra to get green power, but they can still make computers and drinks the same way, no matter what power they use. The problem is with the people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (e.g. the oil and coal people). I'm not saying they're heartless bastards - they might be just as willing to donate some of their profits to a good cause as IBM and Coke execs. But are they prepared to make decisions that could cost their business a fortune? Render billions of dollars of equipment useless? Willingly send their company broke?
The overwhelming answer is no - they'll do whatever they can to keep their company alive and healthy. That doesn't make them evil. It's just the old survival instinct kicking in. Besides, directors are chosen by shareholders to maximise their dividends per share - they're just doing their job. It's not their responsibility to look after society - that falls to government.


Hmm, I'd better get this back on track. I've talked a lot about politics and not much about science. Is pollution messing up our environment somewhat? Definitely. Is it on a scale that can be healed naturally, or will it send us up the creek if we keep going? I don't know for sure. But it seems like common sense to keep investigating, and do more research into alternate power sources. I mean, unis are wasting some money on absolutely stupid topics (e.g. A$50,000 for a PhD student to study whether Jesus was gay - no I'm not making that one up), and that's just a drop in the ocean. Isn't it worth putting more funding into research that _might_ save our planet? I'd say yes - even if it's only a "might", that still makes it more important than a lot of the other stuff money gets wasted on.

That brings up the next problem - how would we implement such a change? If it can be 100% proven that the damage we cause will destroy the earth, and someone finds a guaranteed solution, we should do everything we can to use it. The government should also intervene in the maybe cases (maybe pollution won't destroy the earth, or maybe the solution won't work). I don't mind a hand of blackjack, but gambling with this planet is too rich for my blood. These are the two mistakes we could make:

1) If we make the reforms and they weren't necessary, we'll blow some government money and force some industries to shut down for no valid reason.

2) If we don't make the reforms and they turned out to be necessary... adios muchachos. Game over.

Think about it for a second. Do you like betting that much on a single decision? If so, maybe you should skip blackjack and try playing russian roulette. But any responsible government would rather make the first mistake than the second.




Yeah, society has this funny habit of bashing people who come up with crazy new ideas, especially if they run contrary to everything that society stands for.
( Of course, sometimes it's just because the people are whack-jobs LOL ) Still, it's important to keep an open mind and actually consider what they're saying, otherwise you'll burn the real visionaries along with the whackos.




You need "something" there, but I don't think it has to be spiritual, necessarily. What about the simple wish to do something good for humanity? I think the "something" you're thinking about might be a simple recognition that you're one of billions of people here. What possible effects could your invention have on them - good and bad? Of course, even if you think about those things, someone out there could use your invention in a way you never intended. But that's one of the risks of research - and a spiritual sense on your part won't stop others with less morals from abusing your invention.




Well, hopefully, people looking for advice on dealing with aliens won't click on a thread with a title like this one

I'm going to side with Maxtipherous on this issue. There is simply not hard scientific evidence of anything that incriminates humans as the dominant force in the very recent warming of the earth.

Most of the "studies" that have been quoted so far deal with ice cores and the like. The thing to realize is that ice has only been around since the last ice age. It tells us nothing about the actual variations in the climate over millions of years. There have been a few clever "studies" of geological data that show that we are nowhere near the hottest this planet has been since life began (I add the part about "since life began" because precreation--read as either planetary creation or formation,you pick--was exceptional).

I don't deny that humans need to pay attention to the damage they do. We have introduced many toxins to the ecosphere. We should fix any that we can realistically fix, but I am simply not convinced that our actions are the dominant cause of the current warming trends.

I'm not posting to end the debate. I'm posting to say, unless somebody comes up with a consistent, complete picture of the ecological history of the planet (beyond the last ice age), we cannot know the answer to the debate.

At this point, I post and wait for the holes in my logic to be revealed and addressed.

TheQuack -- strong moderate viewpoint -- thanx



You need option 3) If we jump the gun and do something stupid and preventable that makes things worse, we are culpable.

Check out the graph I mentioned on the EPA website, imagine you are a Sierra Club fanatic in the 1950's, and I think you will see my point.

Here is an unsubstantiated example of my point. The article is gleaned from the internet and I haven't checked the sources, but having read literally dozens of similar articles over the years, a little digging in Scientific America, National Geographic, and Time archives will bear me out.

~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-30-97.html
"The climate has long been a favorite of apocalyptics. Two decades ago [more like 3 now -- maxti] there were fears of-- a new ice age. Publications like National Geographic reported shorter growing seasons, summer frosts, and advancing glaciers. Time magazine observed that "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing." There were also books, including "The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age and Ice: The Ultimate Human Catastrophe."

The latter, written by Fred Hoyle and published in 1981, proclaimed: "It is 12,500 years since the last ice age ended, which means the next one is long overdue. When the ice comes, most of Northern America Britain, and Northern Europe will disappear under the glaciers." Mr. Hoyle advocated warming the oceans."

~~~~~~~~~~
this was in the 50's and 60's folks -- an impending ice age was a serious concern.

Real science and perspective is needed.

And Ginata -- shame on you for assuming I am uneducated. My experience is longer than yours, that's all.

Max, maybe we're headed for a nice warm ice age?!

Max I just tried to explain to you that your point regarding using data collected from the 19th century was misleading. The data regarding that period I was refering to was collected in the last 15 years . . . I put it down to a misunderstanding, I don't think scientific method (or at least some of the data regarding climate) from the 19th century carries very much validity either.

There's alot more to this issue besides global warming folks. To be honest I don't particularly see global warming as a huge problem since its a natural process.

Its the other things like the use of non-degradable chemicals causing ozone depletion and mutation, poor land management causing salination and soil errosion, destroying unique habitates and species that my children will never see, the disasterous effects of non native spiecies on ecology, the disposal of nuclear wastes (hiding would be a better word) and the practice of unsustainable processes like the use of petrochemical fuels and the 'just bury it in a hole and forget it' kinda waste management.

Many of these problems I believe can be addressed now . . .

Creating polymers that are biodegradable and investing some research into bio-chemicals that don't mess up DNA,
Hydrogen and eletric cars or perhaps a higher prority towards improved transport systems for the masses,
Landscape engerneering agricultural models in synergy with the environment etc etc . . .

These mesures aren't going to do anything but improve the quality of our environment for us and future generations . . .

Salination here in Australia for example is a looming doom, compound this with our droughts of the last 10 years and people begin to realize there must be a better way.

You'd have to admit at least some of the problems I mentioned must concern you . . . ? There are good economic reasons also to manage our resources more efficiently.

Anyone ever spread thier toast with honey from Agentina?

The Kyoto Protocols could not have worked way they were constructed. Yes, fixing them would have been better than dismissing them outright, but environmental issues on a large-scale basis tend not to yield from their origin, even when shown to be flawed.



And still is. Global warming in the past has typically been a sign of an impending ice age. The question is whether we're causing enough damage to hurry the next freeze along.

~SDC~

Maxtipherous:



I think a careful reading shows otherwise... if you claim that all the evidence that a phenomenon occurring is wrong, then you are denying the existence of that phenomenon. But okay... let's go with what you say you mean here.



I think you're focusing too much on the weak arguments rather than the strong ones.



The obvious question is, why is your opinion on this stronger than that of a large majority of scientists? If you think they're biased... why are your sources less biased? If you think "it just doesn't make sense to me," why is your intuition about complex systems so reliable, and theirs not?

Also, you should be more careful about claims such as "the sum total effect CO2 has compared to all these other factors is laughable" since that's exactly the sort of statement you're decrying.



Invalid analogy. There was no scientific consensus toward cooling whatsoever. Some people predicted warming, some people predicted cooling, and it was admitted by all that the evidence in either direction was weak. In general the field of climatology was neglected. Seizing upon some works that predicted cooling, while ignoring the works predicting warming, and ignoring both sides' notes of caution, is vastly misleading. Since that time, and with the addition of new data, a large majority of scientists have come down on the side of global warming caused by man.



Fred Hoyle did great work when he was young, but by the 1980s he'd gone off the deep end. For example, he believed that influenza is caused by viruses from space, and he attacked Darwinism, making him a darling of creationists everywhere. Citing him as representative of what scientists think is just wrong.


AmulekBird:



There are lots of ways to look beyond the last ice age. The chemical composition of fossils varies depending on the temperature at which the animal/plant/bacteria lived. Chemical composition of mineral deposits depends on the temperature at which they formed. You can look at growth patterns of ancient organisms which have been preserved--fossilized tree rings and coral reefs and so on. It's by no means impossible to look past the ice age--though admittedly not as easy.



Certainly. It was far hotter, for example, when the dinosaurs were around. But just because the planet can withstand higher temperatures doesn't mean we should be blase about the prospect.

The *rate* of change in temperature is exceptionally fast, faster than it's been since the ice age according to most estimates. If things change quickly enough, systems (natural and human) can't adjust in time, and you risk large disruptions. For example, if climate shifts too quickly over a forest, there may not be not enough time for the forest to shift northward to cooler climes, and you cause a mass extinction. Or you might turn traditionally productive farmland into desert, or you might cause flooding of coastal cities which cannot be moved, or extend the range of diseases, and so on. Just because it used to be warmer doesn't mean we'll like it that way.
[Message Edited]

vincible . . . a thoughtful contribution thank you.

It's been great reading through this thread and pondering all your views between the melodramas of the day.

All your responses I appreciate without exception . . . I was really pleased to see folks like Maxtipherous and AmulekBird stick thier necks out to make thier sides of the discussion known. Not an easy thing to do when so many seem to take the opposite stand point on many issues concerning our environment.

In the end its not really the Earth I'm so concerned about but ourselves. What kind of species are we evolving into? Are we just a flash in the pan or something really special on a cosmological scale.

Its ironic that as far as we've come it would take so little to wipe us out forever (A large Comet, Asteroid or even an Altarian invasion for example). Geez imaging the calamity that snuffed out the dinasaurs . . . would we collectively be anymore prepared or be able to survive if we even saw it comming? I doubt it . . .

Humans from what I've observed seem quite able to address the obvious retrospectively. Which is to say they'll more likely throw all thier resorces into solving a problem when it is completely apparent and its consequences bear imminent ramifications.

So I guess we'll all just have to wait and see if our custodianship of this planet thus far will bring us some gloomy choices in the not too distant future . . .

You got that part right, Earth (and life on Earth) will continue no matter how bad we screw up the planet. We, on the other hand, will not survive a major blow to the ecosystem.



That would be the ultimate answer to your question about Mars. Why go there? Because it is the first step to the stars which is the only way the human race will survive in the long run, by spreading through the stars.


~SDC~

Heya! You just joined the dots in my subconcious mind . . . scary but thankyou . . . some of the people here are kinda spinning me out . . . kewl

vincible



I said fact, not opinion. After harping on this issue I will assume you simply don't appreciate the distinction between basing public policy on scientific fact rather than some fuzzy summary of academic opinion.


eroneous.
1) a large majority of scientists agree on climate change
2) a large majority agree in long-term warming trends (ten thousand year resolution)
3) a majority of scientists agree on accelerated change (last thousand years)
4) a majority of scientists agree that humans affect climate (as do bovines, whales, and ants)
5) a majority of scientists agree that the greatest contribution toward climate change by humans is greenhouse gasses and, more recently, particulate polution such as soot.
6) the same majority of scientists recognize the *infinitessimal* contribution the the overall effect of warming caused by individual factors such as co2. Thousanths of a percent of overall effect.
7) Most agree that global warming would continue due to such factors as increased solar radiation, and *may* even accelerate even if all human causes were *reversed*.
8) a minority of scientists feel that humans are a significant factor in global warming -- that is to say that global warming would stop if all human causes were *reversed*.
9) a small minority feel that individual fixes, (such as kyoto) will have any measurable effect (this is why kyoto failed).
10) a small minority cry doomsday (as the first few posters in this thread) and demand radical action.

Actually, I'd say that humanity is probably the non-insect species most likely to survive a major blow to the ecosystem. We're really the only ones capable to developing and executing an effective plan to keep ourselves alive. Haven't you ever seen a sci-fi movie where everybody lives in enclosed domes because the atmosphere outside is poisonous from the polution? There's about a thousand of them out there.
~SDC~
[Message Edited]

You misinterpreted the question, by looking at the wrong part of the quote I excerpted in my earlier post. The part I was asking about was the section on CO2. When you say that "the sum total effect CO2 has compared to all these other factors is laughable," or, earlier, "there is virtually no hard science in so called environmental issues such as global warming. The proofs are all circular," or all your discussions of the magnitude of the imperfections of various models, you are making statements that most scientists would disagree with. The question was, "why should I believe you and not the scientists?"

I will admit that I should have perhaps quoted more, and different parts, of your old posts in order to reduce the possibility of confusion. Happy now?

Anyway, perhaps inadvertently, you answered my real question in the second part of your post, saying that you have different beliefs about what majority opinion among scientists is than I do:



I think you're wrong on all of these. I don't know why you believe these (feel free to tell me), but I base my contrary belief on having read scientific journals for a while, on representations of scientific opinion in the media (even the most industry friendly media say "opinion among scientists is divided" not "a majority believe human effects are insignificant")
I base this belief on my having read scientific journals for quite a while, on representations in the media, and on various government and international reports such as the IPCC's.

Perhaps this will convince you (or anyone else who happens to be interested in the topic). Go to any scientific magazine--as technical a journal as you can stand--and do a search for climate. Nature or Science Magazine or even a journal specializing in climate would be best but you probably don't have a subscription, and they can be incomprehensible to the layman. Try Scientific American--it's free online, scientifically sound and fairly friendly to the layman--and use the search terms "climate" and "carbon dioxide." (Just my suggestion, you might of course find better search terms.) I guarantee you'll find a whole bunch of statements about how the consensus points toward byproducts of human industry (CO2, methane, CFCs, etc) being a major, probably primary, driver of global climate change in the short term. And you'll find a bare handful of articles from or about doubters, who acknowledge they're in the minority.

Try it.


Finally, I think you misunderstand the requirements of government policy. Government ALWAYS makes decisions on the basis of incompete information. Demands for scientific "fact" (if that can even be said to exist, since all science is inherently probabilistic) are ridiculous. Economists don't know for sure what the exact effect of, say, raising or lowering the the tax rate is. The uncertainties there are probably even greater than they are for global climate change. That doesn't stop government from occasionally changing its tax policy in response to economic events. Nor should it.

I'd agree with that, too (if you include some plants and bacteria among the likely survivors as well). But survive and prosper are very different things.



I think so too... but it's a long-term consideration, in my opinion. It can wait a few decades.

Do you think the woolie mammoths farted too much and caused that major ice age?

Who was responsible for flipping magnetic poles? Magnet manufacturers? They seem like they're getting ready to flip again here too... Which means *no* magnetic field for awhile- which means ozone is gonna get hurt. I think we should stack a bunch of magnets at either end of the earth to fix it!

Why was the planet so much hotter during the plasticine era? Too many clay ovens?

~SDC~

Absolute Cr@p

EPA website on global warming
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.

Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scientific American online
search term "climate"
first result, unedited first paragraph

Questions about global warming are always controversial. There is no unambiguous way to measure weather or climate over the entire globe, and computer climate models are limited by incomplete understanding about the behavior of the atmosphere. We offer here more responses to your question.

~~~~~~~~~~
Scientific American
Titles and summaries of search results 2-5

Climate of Uncertainty
The unknowns in global warming research . . .

Dissent in the Maelstrom
Maverick meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen keeps right on arguing that human-induced global warming isn't a problem

DESERTING THE SAHARA
. . .scientists are beginning to believe that vegetation can strongly amplify the climate's most subtle whims . . .


Hot Words
A recent study suggested that humans may not be warming the earth
~~~~~~~~~~

"'discernible' human influence on climate"
"unlikely to be entirely natural in origin."
"new and stronger evidence"
"always controversial"
"no unambiguous way"
"incomplete understanding"

what concensus? Do you just read over this stuff to get to the parts you agree with?

Face it Vincible -- you made your challenge and I shredded your position. There is no concensus, and there is no hard science.

My blood pressure precludes my continuing to read and reply to this thread.