Global Warming – Part 1

People keep asking me to blog about global warming. I have so far avoided the topic for four reasons:

1. My profound ignorance on the topic.
2. My inability to evaluate the claims on both sides.
3. My preference of not being scared shitless about drowning.
4. My observation that scary predictions about the future rarely happen.

This is one of the many, many cases where ignorance has utility. I can’t do much to stop global warming, but I can do plenty to ignore it and not worry myself into a coma before I drown in melted glacier water.

Anyway, recently I got dragged into the debate by a comment left by reader Bruce Harrison. He objected to a prior post in which I noted our President was ignoring the consensus of scientists on the question of global warming. I called this sort of behavior stupid.

Bruce countered by calling me arrogant and ignorant. So far, his opinion was spot on, so I figured it was worth seeing what else he had to say. This led me down a path of random, unreliable fact-gathering that I like to call “research.”

As I already noted, I’m not qualified to evaluate the science behind global warming. The best I can do is to evaluate the media reports of that science. Here’s the path my “research” took me.

In round one, I accepted the majority opinion of leading scientists, that global warming is happening, and that a big cause of that warming is all the frickin’ people and their energy-gobbling ways. A good representation of all those scientists is here on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

But where are the dissenters? Bruce Harrison pointed me to this web site where thousands of scientists signed a petition saying global warming is not caused by people.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Hmmm. That seems like a body blow to the idea that the science of global warming is settled. Then I noticed a follow-up comment on this blog by reader rokusan, who pointed to a web story about how the petition by the dissenters is not credible.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

At this point in my “research” I was back to thinking the majority of scientists are probably right. You can find dissenters for any view. You can even find thousands of them if you put some effort into it. So I discounted the petition by the dissenters.

Then I looked at the next link provided by Bruce. It’s for a video called "The Great Global Warming Swindle." I figured this would be good for a laugh, kind of like a creationist museum with cowboys riding dinosaurs. It’s a long video, so I’ll summarize it after showing this link.

http://www.ksfo.com/goout.asp?u=http://leaningstraightup.com/2007/03/11/the-global-warming-swindle-video/.

The gist of the video is that Al Gore and the scientists got the cause-and-effect thing backwards. There is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures throughout history, but temperature increases come first by hundreds of years. Warmer weather heats the oceans and produces more carbon dioxide.

So what causes the extra heat? According to the experts on the video, the data says it’s clearly the sun. When the sun has extended periods with lots of sun spots, it raises the temperature on Earth a bit. That warms the oceans, which releases more carbon dioxide.

According to the video, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by humans is miniscule, and our industrialization doesn’t even correlate with changes in Earth’s temperatures. In summary:

Sun = huge hot thing that keeps fucking with us

SUV = drive all you want

As I’ve noted, and will continue to note, I’m not qualified to judge the science of global warming. But if you ask me to judge the persuasiveness of competing media accounts, I’d say the argument against people causing global warming is the strongest.

The video also does a surprisingly good job of explaining why the majority of scientists are politically and financially motivated to get the science of global warming wrong. I can’t judge the accuracy of that assertion, but the video is exceptional in its persuasiveness.

I expect the comments to this post to include convincing evidence that global warming is caused by people. If you plan to do that, watch the video first. It probably addresses most of your points.

Go.

[Update: It took about ten minutes for reader Chris Graham to post this link debunking the video "The Great Global Warming Swindle.": http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html. Obviously I am unqualified to judge either the video or the debunking to it, but the last thing I read alway seems the most persasive.]

Comments

[steven]

Al Gore is a finest example of America hypocrisy,during his VP,carbon polluter got go ahead to pollute our earth from his administration in return for big financial contribution,at the end of his office,stop global warming become the fight of his crusade for a better world which affected the developed nations so much.

[steven]

Al Gore is a finest example of America hypocrisy,during his VP,carbon polluter got go ahead to pollute our earth from his administration in return for big financial contribution,at the end of his office,stop global warming become the fight of his crusade for a better world which affected the developed nations so much.

[penis enlargement]

I am Very thank full the owner of this blog. Becouse of this blog is very imformative for me.. And I ask u some thiing You make more this type blog where we can get more knowledge. http://www.penisenlargementz.com

[Floridian]

Global Warming Impact Day 1. Some say the full brunt of the global warming storm will hit on the day we least expect it!

[Enlargement]

First of all I d'like to say. This blogs have lots of imfomation and thay all imfomation is very important for me. http://www.breastenlargementx.com

[hipotecas & prestamos]

Climatic Change is Not a Problem of the Future

The diagnosis of the future of the planet cannot be gloomier. To the numerous elements that damage the environment, we must now add others, like the direct consequences of turning food into fuel, established as the economic policy guideline of the United States, designed and defended at all costs by the US president.

The issue has been presented on many occasions as a warning of the potential danger that, if continued, will affect the indispensable conditions for the life on the planet. Evidently at the service of the large transnationals, which produce 25 percent of the contaminating gas emissions, the White House has justified its position and has systematically refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

The inhabitants of the planet are required to act urgently. Maybe it's not too late.

Carlos Menéndez
http://www.creditomagazine.es

[weight]

hello friends first of all I want to know how to make this type blog. I want to make a this type blog where people come can disscuss and give us his opinion than we get more knowledge. http://www.weightlossdietpillz.com

[HGH]

Very nice post. I liked your writing style and the way you covered the topic.

[abuy]

it was very nice to go through this blog. usually we cant find that much informative blogs like this. thanks.

[abuy]

it was very nice to go through this blog. usually we cant find that much informative blogs like this. thanks.

[penisa]

Most of the time blogs don't carry alot of information and just made for time pass. But I think your blog is the one where I have learned many things with your practicles and experiences. Thanks

[penis enlargement]

penis enlargement products reviews like vigrx, magnarx, natural gain plus, sizomax, vp-rx, penis enlargement extenders, devices and penis enlargement pumps that enlarge penis size naturally up 3-4 inch in a month. www.gordoniihoodia.net

[Poptech]

That article does not debunk the Great Global Warming Swindle. Not even remotely...

The Science in The Great Global Warming Swindle (Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University)
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945

"The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited.

2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:
Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere

Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!

3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.

But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!"

Director Martin Durkin responds to the critics (Telegraph.uk)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/ngreen218.xml

Swindle and Mid-20th Century Cooling (Climate Audit)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1266

"Their data derived from a Hansen version, but the graphic artist made a plotting error in the horizontal axis which had the effect of dilating the second half of the second 20th century. They say that they corrected the graphic for the 2nd screening and sent me a copy of the new graphic, which reconciles to a Hansen version."

Debate hots up over climate-change dissidents (The Guardian)
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2033170,00.html

"With regard to reports that one contributor says he was "misled" by the programme and "misrepresented" within it, Channel 4 has a detailed correspondence which shows this is not the case. The view that Professor Egil Friss-Cristensen, head of the Danish Space Centre, "incorrectly handled data" and used "faulty methods" in his research is contested in his response, and he has demonstrated a good correlation between solar-cycle length and temperature. Professor John Christy, head of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, also disputes the claim that he has been "proved wrong", and his most recent (2005) data on the heating of the lower atmosphere have not been challenged. There were many other voices in the film that present a powerful argument."

Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD (The Guardian)
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2064925,00.html

"This contemptible attempt at gagging won't work. The reason they want to suppress The Great Global Warming Swindle is because the science has stung them. By comparison look at the mountains of absurd nonsense pedalled in the name of 'manmade climate change'. Too many scientists have staked their reputations and built their careers on global warming. There's a lot riding on this ridiculous theory. The DVD will be on sale shortly at a shop near you."

C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece

"In the course of translating complex data to a stylised television graphic, an inadvertent error occurred in the short sequence of data of solar activity between 1625 and 1700. This point of detail has been rectified for future transmissions. It does not affect the argument of the film."

Addendum by Eigil Friis-Christensen (Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of the Danish National Space Center)
http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement_bak.html

"Alternatively, this could indicate that solar cycle length is not (as is the case for the sunspot number) a perfect descriptor of solar activity associated with climate."

"The last sentence above illustrates the dilemma for the physicist and the limitations of correlation analyses. For a physicist a break down of a correlation where you would expect one is just as – or sometimes even more - informative as a good correlation when it comes to the ultimate goal, which is to understand the physics. Climatologists are more concerned whether the observations fit their preconceived model and prefer to describe solar activity by one single parameter. But solar activity can not be described by a single number. There are many different manifestations of the turbulent and 3-dimensional distribution of energy release from the Sun, and for a physicist the real challenge is to find those parameters of solar activity that best correlate with climate in order to provide a clue regarding the exact physical mechanism that could be responsible for a cause and effect relationship. The present case illustrates how science works. In 1997 the results of a parallel line of research indicated a more direct physical link between solar activity and climate (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997 [Journ. Atm. Sol. Terr. Phys., 59:1225-32]). This result was later refined with more and better observations and documented that during the last two solar cycles there is a very good correlation between the solar modulation of the cosmic rays and the low altitude cloud cover (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000 [Space Science Review, 94: 215-30]). So therefore, and in spite of the fact that the solar cycle length seemed not to explain the most recent temperature increase after 1985, solar variations still do have direct effect on important climate parameters. How large this effect may be on the global temperature is currently being investigated, and is outside the scope of this comment. But there is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases. The question is how much. Only increased understanding of the physical processes can give us the answer."

Swindle and the Stick (Climate Audit)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1542

"The Swindle complainants should be careful what they ask for. If Durkin had to re-do the section on the Stick, he might well come up with something that is much more powerful than what he’s presently got."

[tony]

Global Warming – Part 1 nice article about global issue today i talking about this global issue is these day women are also drink wine too much this is very bad thing and also when they are pregrent they did't not stop smoking and drinking is effect to her baby which she birth it become many diaseses to brith baby

[tony]

women drinking wines in her pregency and that not just effect on her health its effect on her birth baby its also have some diasese in these days this is also a global issue

[jackee]

Global Warming – Part 1 nice article you must write about it global warming tell us more about it now in these days wine is also a problem there are two many bars pubs and wine club in one area that the major problem

[Tiffany]

I totally agree with you.
Global Warming will happen regardless of what people do and it's pointless to worry about it..
besides..
if it is going to happen, our generation will be long gone so it doesn't really matter either way to me..
and...
we're known to adapt to culture.. evolve or whatever.. so who knows, maybe mankind will adapt and live on...

[Tiffany]

I totally agree with you.
Global Warming will happen regardless of what people do and it's pointless to worry about it..
besides..
if it is going to happen, our generation will be long gone so it doesn't really matter either way to me..
and...
we're known to adapt to culture.. evolve or whatever.. so who knows, maybe mankind will adapt and live on...

[Mike Williamson]

Don't forget the worst culprit in global warming--WATER VAPOR! 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor.

Luckily, we have the technology to lay giant sheets of mylar over the oceans to prevent this!

Because, after all, life was so much better during the Ice Age.

Dammit, now I have to go burn another tire.

[Mike Williamson]

Some Dweeb named Dave said:
I don't understand how hard it is to understand that people burning fossil fuels releases CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, that that is heating the planet, and that heating is causing the climates to change world-wide. It's pretty straightforward actually.
~~~

Really? So explain how CO2 was quintuple the current levels during the late Carboniferous, with a lower average global temperature.

After all, it's straightforward, right? Which is why we've had 99.999% accurate weather forecasts for the last century.

Oh, and we're going to run out of oil by 1980.

And generate so much heat that Mars, Jupiter and Pluto will feel it.

I have a simple solution to the debate: every time some nutter wets his pants about TEOTWAWKI, I go out back and burn another tire. For Dave, I'll burn two.

[Tom Simpson]

In his debunking of the "Swindle" video DurangoBill uses an interesting graph; the one that shows a corrolation between Methane, CO2 and Temp. over the last 500,00 years or so. There appears to be an enormous spike in all three lines every 100 to 125 thousand years and we are approaching the tip of the most current spike now, right on schedule.
So my question is: If "Man" is causing the current round of "Global Warming" what caused the one 100 thousand years ago and the one 100 thousand years before that one?
Also, the current spike is not as high as the previous ones, yet.

[Oli]

Haha, I love the way the guy claims that global warming debunker uses manipulated data and then proceeds to use some himself a few sentences later.

He also claims that several graphs showing correlation are absolute definative proof of global warming without really discussing which is the cause and which is teh effect.

The truth of the matter as far as I can see is that the earth if following its normal temprature cycle, looking at ice core samples the average world temprature has been measured going back to before the new testamant. The earth is currently suffering from a cool period that it is just starting to come out of, the global warming has been predicted for near a century, and if you do a quick search on google for predicted temprature changes caused by changes in the earths orbit and axis you should come up with a few reliable predictions.

Considering how little carbon emmisions we produce compared to nature itself I cannot believe we are going to be the death of the world through global warming, especially when 'prominant global warming specialists' hired by the various governments put together a report based on carbon levels including types of carbon that do not store heat.

Pollution is one problem we need to solve though, we are polluting the worl with a huge number of contaminants that are killing off the things we need to survive.

http://ramblingsofanofficeworker.blogspot.com

[Adrian D.]

Dave Sag:

I checked one claim that they "debunk". Specifically the claim that other planets are warming as well. In a nutshell, the response they advocate is "That's an interesting coincidence, but it is up to the believers in a natural phenomenon to produce proof of their idea. Those who say global warming is human-caused get a free pass." I grant that the actual wording is more complex; but that is the general meaning.

They assume their conclusion at the onset and use it to "debunk" dissenters. I am not impressed with people who call that effective.

[sondra]

I think it boils down to this -
cities are the pimples on this Earth.
Are they just infected pores
or fatal measles?
Until we find a doctor
who can correctly diagnose a plantary ailment,
we won't know.

I think pimples are more likely, but that doesn't mean the planet's not growing warmer, just that we are too insignificant to be causing it. What kind of ego could believe humans could warm the planet?

[sondra]

I think it boils down to this -
cities are the pimples on this Earth.
Are they just infected pores
or fatal measles?
Until we find a doctor
who can correctly diagnose a plantary ailment,
we won't know.

I think pimples are more likely, but that doesn't mean the planet's not growing warmer, just that we are too insignificant to be causing it. What kind of ego could believe humans that could warm the planet?

[Ben Jackson]

Hey Scott, I live in Montreal, and we recently had a public transit strike. During the strike everyone with any money (not me) took cars or taxis instead of riding public transit. The air turned brown and thick. The whole island smelled really gross and it was hard to see very far. Whether or not SUVs cause "global warming," that's definite proof that they cause pollution. Fortunately the strike ended and there's less cars on the road and it's a bit cleaner out now.

[Ben Jackson]

Hey Scott, I live in Montreal, and we recently had a public transit strike. During the strike everyone with any money (not me) took cars or taxis instead of riding public transit. The air turned brown and thick. The whole island smelled really gross and it was hard to see very far. Whether or not SUVs cause "global warming," that's definite proof that they cause pollution. Fortunately the strike ended and there's less cars on the road and it's a bit cleaner out now.

[Ben Jackson]

Hey Scott, I live in Montreal, and we recently had a public transit strike. During the strike everyone with any money (not me) took cars or taxis instead of riding public transit. The air turned brown and thick. The whole island smelled really gross and it was hard to see very far. Whether or not SUVs cause "global warming," that's definite proof that they cause pollution. Fortunately the strike ended and there's less cars on the road and it's a bit cleaner out now.

[Jim]

Dang it -- I'm too late!!

I just now had time to comment on the fact that Scott has dared to question the most sacred verse in the Leftoid Bible. As soon as I saw it, I was thinking he'd be posting a pseudo-retraction within 5 days. And now he already has.

Anyway, here's my opinion:

==============================
It is very obvious, and has been obvious for some time, that global warming is caused by [abortion]. This is backed up by every scientist on the planet, as well as former presidential candidate [Pat Robertson]. Indeed, media outlets of every stripe, including [Fox News, the Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh] have done exhaustive research and have not found ANY credible scientist with an alternate view. Get out of denial, people! Stop believing the lies fed to you by corrupt [Democrats] who are just pawns of the [abortion] industry! Even if you can't face the truth in front of you, you should change your behavior anyway. At the very least, you will have stopped [killing children].
===================================

Oh... what.... you don't like that?

Feel free to substitute in: [American CO2 emissions],[Al Gore],[CNN, New York Times, NPR],[Republicans],[oil], and [polluting the air].

This might feel better to you, but you still look just as stupid.

[Rachael]

I thought that I'd join in on the debate several days late, and since reading through several hundred comments seems like far too much work I'm going to pretend that nobody else has mentioned this, and present this as a bright, shiny, new piece of information.

Mars is currently going through global warming.

I have yet to find anyone who disputes this fact.

Perhaps it is a complete coincidence that Mars and Earth are going through global warming at the same time. Or perhaps those sneaky Martians are at the height of their resource-destroying civilisation, too.

I enjoy coincidences. They're fascinating.

[black spot]

More thought into the process. A super bug, which I will call Lack of Free Will or LFW for short, will evolve to eat the extra CO2. LFW will enforce me to continue watching TV, using the tumble dryer, drive cars etc to feed itself. LFW will then get above its station and start itself GOD. We’re sunk.

[Frank Paine]

Not surprisingly, you got a lot of responses to this one. To me, the most difficult thing about this "debate" is that it's so difficult to have a discussion based on reason. Care to speculate on why the emotional content on both sides is so intense?

[GG]

"We're not running out of oil, we're running out of *cheap* oil. There are huge deposits of more-expensive oil which will be very economical at $100/bbl. The link does mention that, but they go off on a "energy produced vs. energy consumed" tangent which is a red herring, because money acts as the arbitrage of energy efficiency." - TallDave

Dave,
Energy produced vs. energy consumed is not a red herring. If you have to burn two barrels of oil to get one barrel of oil out of the ground, you haven't gained anything. If you're not capable of doing simple math, please refrain from having an opinion.

[alexei]

oh Scott!! this is terrible! that video filled the papers in england about a week after being shown on TV. the graphs they used to show the correlation between heat and C02 were deliberately unrepresentative of reality. throughout the program they used unreliable data, misquoted scietists (one of whom wrote an article saying so as he felt the global warming debate was ruined by misquotes). i imagine a lot of other people have said the same thing, but in case they havn't watch the video again and concentrate. most of the "evidence" is unrepresentative. the people who made this video are dispicable in my mind

[Beau]

Awesome!!! Thats the most credible bit of global warming news I have ever read. Now do 9/11!! ???

[Beau]

Awesome!!! Thats the most credible bit of global warming news I have ever read. Now do 9/11!! ???

[TallDave]

Oh, and the "oil peak" debunking is very easy.

We're not running out of oil, we're running out of *cheap* oil. There are huge deposits of more-expensive oil which will be very economical at $100/bbl. The link does mention that, but they go off on a "energy produced vs. energy consumed" tangent which is a red herring, because money acts as the arbitrage of energy efficiency.

Two major trends will happen as oil prices get higher: energy efficiency of devices that require oil will quickly get higher, and alternatives to oil will become more economically feasible and attract far more funding. For instance, electricity from nuclear fission plants can be be used to produce liquid fuel via conversion of waste biomass.

Also, there are a couple non-ITER approaches to fusion in the works which may render the whole debate moot. RW Bussard (of Bussard ramjet fame) claims to have a viable, tested fusion design in his polyhedral magnetic well approach, and a Paul Allen-funded project has a somewhat similar approach which just got $40 million in funding to commercialize their beam-beam magnetic well technique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9721240-7.html

http://www.google.com/patents?id=eG0TAAAAEBAJ&dq=fusion+rostoker

[GeordieHalfBreed]

Dear Kaiser,

Icecaps on the south pole (which is getting thicker in the middle, but overall losing weight round the edges, rather like your brain) are on land, therefore not floating. That water will increase sea levels. As for the rest, any purely floating ice will, hypothetically, cause no net change - try putting some ice-cubes in a glass of water, or looking up an old Greek bloke called Archimedes. However, this means that, on average, sea levels will increase.

Most scientists say that global warming is our fault, and that we can do something about it. As a species we emit an enormous amount of carbon - that isn't hubris, that is fact. Each individual may be insignificant, but there are 6 billion of us. We have potentially a very significant impact on the planet.

And if one more person moans about how this is all a conspiracy designed to make them poorer, I'm going to bite them. Calling them self obsessed, short sighted morons would be rather too complimentary for my liking...
GHB

[Dave Sag]

Here's a "last link" for you to be convinced by. http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

They have analysed every position of the so called "climate change skeptics" and debunked them all.

I don't understand how hard it is to understand that people burning fossil fuels releases CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, that that is heating the planet, and that heating is causing the climates to change world-wide. It's pretty straightforward actually.

Also for a brilliant debunking of that fraud -The Great Warming Swindle - see http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

And for some of the commenters above - the reason to care if it's people causing climate change is that we can actually act to change this before its too late.
Dave

[Lance Drager]

The best place to look for climate science is http://www.realclimate.org.
They do a much better job than I can here of explaining why humans are causing climate change. They give some excellent links. Here are three that I think are good:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_part_iv&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

If you want to understand this issue, you have to read up a bit.

Climate scientists are human, and so subject to prejudice and emotion. That's why we have a scientific method---to prevent us
from deceiving ourselves. Certainly climate scientists continue
to challenge each other's ideas. In any case, the opponents of
global warming are human, and there are reasons (to put it mildly)
they might be prejudiced. You can't settle these arguments by
arguing about who is or isn't prejudiced. You have to look at the evidence and the reasoning. If you must short-cut that, the scientific consensus is the best estimate available.

People often have to act in the face of much more uncertainty than
there is on this issue. Acting means messy politics, but
there is no alternative.

[Someone else]

http://xkcd.com/c164.html

read this

[Someone]

My knowledge of this topic is very minimal too. But I have one question. I have visited some parks just an hour north of Toronto, Canada. We have seen boards that say that those areas were under water and glaciers covered them as recently as 12,000 years ago. They have receded since then.

We all agree that there was no pollutant caused by humans 12,000 years ago. How did they melt back then? Could what is happening today be something like from 12,000 years ago? Or Possibly still a continuation of that?

[Borjan]

Ah, what can I say about global warming that wasn't already said? I was really concerned about it until recently, when I went to the science-fair where real scientists explained to me a few facts about Earth's climate and the causes of GW outside of human influence (which exists, but to what extent?).

1) The axis of Earth's rotation is not solid - it wobbles and slants to various degrees every few centuries, which causes differences in temperature around the globe.

2) Earth's orbit is not solid elipse. It also differs slightly every year (hence cooler and hotter summers and winters).

3. The whole Solar System is not set in Space outside of everything. It also rotates around the center of the Galaxy in a sinusoidal pattern, passing through the thicker layers of cosmic dust every time when Solar System travels through the Milky Way's plain (disc) every 100.000 or 200.000 years.

Following that pattern through history and comparing it to the evidence of ice-ages and warm periods - they say - you can see a funny coincidence: when our Solar system passes through the thicker layers in the middle of the disc coincide with ice age, while warm periods coincide with the tops and bottoms of sinusoidal curve.

4) Vulcanoes. We haven't had a major eruption in a long while, but even when Mt.Helen exploded there was a visible drop of temperatures around the globe. It was said that one eruption during one day can put enough CO2 into atmosphere to equal the whole industrial production of the U.S. in a whole year!

Well...

Add to that the psychological side to it: since evolution robbed us of "that special place" for our species, we had to find another way to occupy our feeble minds and add importance to our species. So we exaggerated our role in Global Warming beyond any common sense.

To add insult to injury, there are TWO real problems which everyone forgot...

POPULATION GROWTH: we are hunting down and destroying countless other species to make space (or food) for more of us.

LIGHT POLLUTION: we are emitting way more light into the night than it's really necessary, thus confusing many species of migrating birds.

[Gleetnorx]

What about human global crapping, pissing, food and water uptake, woodburning and crafts?
Over six billion turds a day is an impressive amount of waste.
Factor in the technological cyborgisms and we are
ROBO humans! Here to rape and pillage the earth right down to the bare rocks and below!

[ortelius]

It is really fantastic to see, how many people here admit their own stupidity following by strong opinion – global warming hasn’t been caused by humans or ... or .... Could anybody sane really think that we can burn all coal and oil deposited during tens of millions years in 200 or 300 years without unbalancing atmosphere?

Why the people haven’t read few articles (summaries) i.e. here: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 before talk stuff about undersea volcanoes (irrelevant to atmospheric CO2 content), about tiny human CO2 emissions (humans are 100x worse then volcanoes), about past global warming, about predicted global warming in 1970s, about warming on Mars and Pluto (there is high uncertainty in measuring of Earth temperature, how anybody can measure temperature of Mars and Pluto), about methane being more dangerous then CO2 (no it isn't) ...
... and especially about conspiracy (so, the scientists are conspiring for personal profit, while petrol industry, SUV owners and other lazy and stupid people are non-selfish altruists?).

[Hmm...]

Thanks for the great links!

I am going to believe it's a swindle. For 2 reasons.

1. Attribute more weightage to someone like professor of MIT (Dept. of Meteorology) versus what Al Gore or U.N's IPCC. Former is more likely to be unbiased (along the lines of your "outsource the government" post)

2. More importantly, the believers of "global warming is man-made" show a definite "specialness factor". They are the ones who believed what we humans do is very important to everything, we are the center of the universe, sun revolves round the earth, God made universe for the man, etc. If there is such a strong evidence against this, it must be the specialness factor again getting to our heads!

Cheers!

[Nick]

Scott, I expect you to be a bit more astute and to move past the scientific argument on this.

Let's just forget the science, and see how the scenario plays out:

Scenario 1) We do nothing.
The middle-east continues to fill its coffers with western money from oil, continues to show its relevance in world affairs, and continues funding terrorism. The big oil companies continue making multi-billion dollar profits, and as the oil supply dwindles, we become in a greater struggle to secure the resources we've become dependent on.

In the meantime, the Chinese and Indians have developed all the key Green technology that allows them a greater competitive advantage (cheaper energy) over the rest of the world, setting them up for the next century of dominance.

Scenario 2) We act. We resolve to institute a space-race-like program to reduce our dependence on foreign energy by 50% over 20 years. We develop all the key technology, send the price of oil through the floor, and continue to live in a society that can afford to pay people lots of money to write funny things on paper (or fancy Centriq monitors - even more opulent :))

The problems in the middle east dwindle because of their lack of funding. They can blow each other up, but the oppression (not to mention lack of food) by their corrupt governments will become their cause.

Pick one. Forget the science.

Then throw the global warming argument into those scenarios. If it's false, we get the benefits outlined above. If it's true and we pick scenario 1, Woops!

[Tony]

Solar radiation (*not* light and *not* heat but the particles that bombard us from space - durangobill has got this wrong...) has influence on forming of clouds (ever seen a cloud chamber?). The clouds in turn have a huge influence on the temperature (ever observed that a cloudy day is cooler than a clear day?).

And I found to read about "Global Dimming" interesting as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

There is a interesting documentary:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

"I must say that the publications had almost no effect whatsoever on the scientific community."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382#0h05m28s
(Go see the entire documentation, while it is online...)

And some people even think about using clouds to prevent global warming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg7J8P-uXqM

I should not be posting this, but you might find it amusing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPZ5FqimF3E

[Erich Neubert]

I think the fact that there have been many Ice Ages and subsequent "Warming Periods" cleary indicates that humans do not matter as much as other greater influences such as the Sun and Earths Elliptical orbit. The only thing we are doing is making it harder for humans to live here. The planet will do fine without us. Other plants and animals will adapt. BTW - so will humans.

I think the whole Global warming thing has valitidy, but most of it's stupid people telling dumb people stupid things.

Ohh, what I wouldn't give for a President who actually knew what to do and did the right thing.

[eibbor]

My take:

I'm not an expert in the nitty gritty science of this by any means... assuming it even exists.

All I know is that we are a mere speck in the history of the Earth. In 10,000 years, the only thing left of our entire civilization will probably be a few weathered pennies. I find it really hard to believe that in the last 200 years we've doomed the planet, which has done just fine for 4.5 billion years. There have been numerous ice ages and numerous anti-ice ages. History seems to indicate that we're on the way up again, nearing a peak. I honestly thing, that to think this is all caused by us, is quite arrogant. We really aren't that significant. Also, I highly doubt we know everything there is to know about climate. To pin all the blame on our current civilization, even though there's still plenty of unknowns, and a not insignificant portion of evidence points towards other factors, seems premature. Suppose global warming is potentially being caused by our icky carbon... how do we know our impact is even that significant? It's like trying to take credit for a company's success, because you invested 50 dollars to buy one share. I don't know enough about this to take a specific stand on this, though I'm pretty sure our best minds out there don't either.

All that said, I have absolutely nothing against reducing the amount of crap we emit, be it in the form of gross smoggy gases, or non-biodegradable trash. But, to completely kill the economy for it when it doesn't have the capacity to handle such a significant change in such a short period of time, doesn't seem like a good idea. I'm pretty sure we'll come up with something to pump into our cars long before we run out of oil.

[Christopher Edwards]

I love it when people say that you can't trust research that supports global warming because the researchers are motivated by money. Well the same can easily be said about the research opposing global warming.
I live in Alberta, a very oil-rich province, and the people who live here won't even listen to reasons why global warming might be real, because it may infringe on their cushy oil-rich way of life.

That being said, which research can we trust. Does anyone have a list of independently funded research papers related to global warming? Of all the political interest in this, there must be a group of rational, non-money grubbing scientists out there who are doing real research. Or am I being to naive/idealistic about noble scientific research...

[arlo]

what the correlation thing proved, for certain, is that co2 levels and global temperature are closely related, beyond that, whether it's because of the sun the co2 levels are high or because of man-kind, that is the debatable part..

[le Big MAC]

Wow! Lots of good arguing pro and con, about pollution and our impact on nature. My brain is refreshed!
No one here has considered the environmentalism for Republicans angle. We have to come up with the selling points for the white male landowners who increase their profits by allowing pollution to happen, and have money to buy spin and smoke/mirrors distractions from the fact that POLLUTION IS BAD (Sorry John Long, it's what is known as a fact).
1. Yachting. Wouldn't it be cool to ride your 40+ foot floating house INTO Miami or NYC? Or over one of these Pacific nations that is about to be taken out by waves? Of course us middle class skiiers are getting it in the wazoo.
Of course, they knew about it all along! We hard working schmucks all rolled our eyes at the rich sailboating assholes thinking, Man who needs a big boat with all the amenities of a house, that you can ride on in case of a...flood....I need a sailboat!!!
2. Beemers. The car more gas and co2 efficient than the Prius? The BMW! Sundance's "Ideas for a Green Planet" show had a great segment on 100% electric Porsche style cars. Good luck trying to buy one, the first line of 250 is GONE.
3. Schools. Pretend you care about the children by assigning more reading in schools, to waste the time of kids who should be learning actual life skills. Crichton would be awesome to buy in bulk, to counter all those hippie teachers assigning "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson.
Any suggestions? Now if you'll excuse me, I have to sit in a grey cubicle under fluorescent lights and warm myself with the hot air of idiots.

[Ty Poe]

Even if you think global warming is a big hoax, you still have to look at another important piece of this puzzle: Our dependence on terrorist nations for our energy. If we would do everything in our power to eliminate our thirst for Middle Eastern crude oil, we would have less war, less death, less pollution.

[Nimrod]

"The last thing I read always seems the most persuasive." Too true.

[black spot]

I don’t believe scientists either way. Take liver. I like eating liver. Over the last fifteen years, I gave birth to three kids. Each time during pregnancy the advice on eating liver changed. Then there’s red wine – now is it good or bad for me? The pill causes one cancer but prevents another. They can’t agree or get these things right, and I’m supposed to listen to them pontificating on global issues? Meh, when scientists stop scaring us, I might listen.

[Climate dude]

Gloabal warming is 99.9999% political in and out of science. Yep we sceientist are just as falibal as anyone else. We have "popular" therios. We ignore what can't be answered and answer anyway. We like funding........In fact without it we stop being a scientist.

the Facts that most aggree with:
The earth is warming
We have added mesurable amounts of CO2 to the atmospheare.
We like to cut down trees and then let the land wash away.
We are very bad at predicing anything.
Climate modling is very new... its gunna take a few more centries of data to really get it right (Evidance that we can get it right)

What is really hard to prove in any resonable scientific way: We have caused the warming (How much, 0-100% ? pick a number).

We should move off oil dependancy anyway. We don't need climate change for that.

Personaly I think I'm gunna be the one laughting in about 100 years...At what we said now.

[Jeremiah]

Global warming being caused by humans is a joke. Here is my reasoning. First, if Al Gore claims to be as concerned about it as he is, why does he spend more than $30,000 a year in just one of his homes on gas and electricity. I understand it's a big home but why not switch to some of the alternative "green" methods that are available in his area? Second, why does he constantly use private jets to fly cross-country? Just one cross-country flight puts more emissions into the air than driving a SUV does in a year. Third, Al Gore used to be Vice President. He was in a position where he could actually do something about global warming but we never heard about it. Does this mean that global warming didn't exist 10 years ago? Fourth, Al Gore has admitted that he exaggerates the problem to get media exposure. Fifth, somebody wanted to put windmills near the Kennedy compound. Robert Kennedy, Jr., the famed environmental lawyer, fought this because they detracted from the view.

I could go on and on but just looking at these few examples makes me seriously question the legitimacy of the "global warming is caused by humans" crowd. If it was as serious as they claim, why don't they change their lifestyles the way that they ask us to?

[Warfreak2]

"When the sun has extended periods with lots of sun spots, it raises the temperature on Earth a bit. That warms the oceans, which releases more carbon dioxide."

That is high school level nonsense. To create carbon dioxide from water, there would have to be carbon in water. Not quite as hilarious as cowboys on dinosaurs, but it is indeed that kind of thing.

You admit that you don't understand any science behind global warming. Why let a scientific argument persuade you if you don't understand it?

[Paul Dove]

At last you're using this blog to join the climate change debate. And you just like almost everyone else, and all of the people who have already left comments, have completely missed the point. Climate changes, it always has and it always will. Maybe we are responsible for accelerating the current warming, maybe we're not. But we are responsible for the way we've spread ourselves, and the infrastructure of our civilisation, across the planet. And this is what will make it almost impossible to adapt to a changing climate.

Some people will adapt, and prosper, but many more will suffer. If you think that the 20th Century famines were bad, you aint seen nothing yet.

And it won't just affect human populations. During previous periods of rapid climate change people, animals and plants migrated to new areas. Now there are too many people, and too many restrictions, for such migrations. Much of the earth's land surface is used for one human purpose or another, leaving a few isolated places where viable populations of animals and plants survive.

As the climate changes these sanctuaries will become inhospitable to the species there, but there will be no-where else for them to go. I've read that there are groups planning to relocate some of these animals as the climate changes, but that will be an enormous task that's unlikely to be funded.

So what are we doing? We're arguing over whose fault it is, instead of planning for the future. I don't know what those plans should include, but I don't think that Kyoto is the answer. We need to be going for sound environmental policies, ones that are worth pursuing whether or not we're responsible for the warming, and getting international agreements in place for how we are going to deal with the displaced people and animals.

What do I think will actually happen? Some of us will get rich while others starve. There will be wars over dwindling resources and the rich will tut tut while continuing to sell arms to the combatants. Same old same old.

[arlo]

and what exactly are the alternative front's suggestions? we turn off the sun? change earth's orbit? sit and wait for the sun to kill us all?

[Boris]

It's an important part of the debate to admit that there *is* a debate. It's good that Scott sees that there are unanswered questions, and that not everyone who asks those questions is a villain.

We should also understand that, as with most science, most of us are relying on authority. We may understand to a great extent what that authority is telling us, but we very likely have not done anything to verify it ourselves, even assuming we have the knowledge to do so. I'm including myself.

Still, this does not sound like the sort of thing where we can afford to be very wrong. There may be a conflict of interest involved, in that climate scientists who say the "wrong" thing - global warming is either not a big deal, or we just don't know yet - don't get the funding. Somehow, it needs to be clear that funding for global warming research is not tied to specific results, one way or the other. And it needs to be funded by groups that don't have an interest in promoting one answer or another. If it's funded by government, then the government must be seen as not promoting any particular answer. Then, if the answer is still that we're in an emergency situation, and need to make some hard choices right now, we can do so with confidence.

I don't know how to do that. Ideas?

[arlo]

what i want to know is who made al gore's film the bible for arguments for global warming?

[Francesco Orsenigo]

I don't know whether we can do something or not to reduce global warming.

I do know that reducing the energy consumed (and this includes SUVs) and changing the way we produce energy, this world would be a lot more safe (less killing each other over energy resources or dangerous technologies) and a lot less polluted (less deaths and diseases).

Global warming issues divert attention from these subjects.

As the various movies and debunking (pro and contro), you should check every statement they do by yourself, outright lies are more frequent than it really should be.

This is not possible to do and tells us that we should devise a way to gather, as people mass, more reliable information.

[Keith Walsh]

It is also entirely possible that Global Climate Change is caused, or at least influenced, by people but has nothing to do with carbon emissions. The “Green House Effects” says that as carbon builds in the atmosphere it will trap heat. Like a green house that heat will slowly cook the Earth. As we emit more carbon a larger blanket will form and the sun’s heat will continue to overheat the earth.

Although this is a sound theory, there is one problem. We can prove that the Earth is warming at the surface but there is no proof that the Earth is warming at the high altitudes were the carbon “blanket” is building. All high altitude weather balloon studies show that the temperature at higher altitudes has remained relatively constant. Basic thermodynamics suggests that a Green House effect would heat top down, just like a green house.

There is another man made option that we know can raise temperature at the surface. It is a well-documented fact that urbanization caused temperature increase. Cities are always warmer then their surrounding country-side. As the world has become more industrialized the size and number of cities has increased drastically and the heating of the Earth’s surface has followed this growth. This does not prove that Global Climate Change is caused by urbanization but the facts seem to support this theory far more then the “Green House” model.

Unfortunately, this is a much harder problem to solve then carbon emissions.

[ML/NJ]

You can learn a lot about "global warming" by Googling "iceberg" and hunting around. (Maybe you will infer, as I did, that when all that ice that has a core temperature around zero degrees F is warmed by a few degrees, there won't be much melting going on.) You can learn more by Googling "Lindzen MIT." See who he is and what he has to say. And maybe finally you should Google "Al Gore Scientific Education." You'll get a lot of hits, but no information.

[Steve]

In the 70's, it was global cooling, now it's global warming. Frankly, I think they're pretty much just making it all up as they go along, to fit an agenda.

However, I do believe that energry independence and conservation are positive things on their own WITHOUT the constant scare-mongering over global warming. Just like I believe strong border controls are important to national security and economic success, WITHOUT any thought to global terrorism.

Sure, they're things worth considering -- but they are not the ONLY things. I'm down with cheap, reliable, cleaner energy -- as long as it doesn't impact my life negatively (and no, I don't drive an SUV; I drive a sedan, it's a bit large, but handles well, is very safe, and I can fit all the stuff I have to haul around in it and move rapidly over long distances that I need to traverse a lot, which I couldn't do as well in a Prius, even though I like those... well, other than the fact that at a mere 6 feet tall I barely fit comfortably in MOST cars that are manufactured! However, I resent SUV's more because I think they're a horrible and mostly avoidable hazard on the highway... but if someone wants to demand that autos double or triple their fuel efficiency in FUTURE models -- the whole "no ex post facto law" bit -- I'm behind that 100%, as long as I can get where I'm going quickly and get all of my stuff there while I'm doing it)

[JG]

I think it would make good blog fodder for you to analyse people's biases in reaction to the news that global warming is currently occuring on Mars. Google "global warming mars".

But either way SUV driving is still not justified. We need to conserve oil becuase it is a limited resource and causes wars.

Love, JG

[Colin]

"What is the correct temperature? We warm up sometimes, we cool down sometimes, so exactly what is the correct temerature for the world? Why is it that if we warm up it will be bad? Why is it that if we cool off it will be bad? If we have to "stop global warming" and I will stipulate for the sake of argument the silly idea that we even can stop it, why do we want to?"
-John Keitz

I think it would realy suc if the worldgot warmer by ove 3 degrees C. It's way to hot already.

However, some even more devestateimg things could happen if the earth warmed up. Theere could be large changes in our atmosphere, and flooding of costal cities.

[Colin]

"What is the correct temperature? We warm up sometimes, we cool down sometimes, so exactly what is the correct temerature for the world? Why is it that if we warm up it will be bad? Why is it that if we cool off it will be bad? If we have to "stop global warming" and I will stipulate for the sake of argument the silly idea that we even can stop it, why do we want to?"
-John Keitz

I think it would realy suc if the worldgot warmer by ove 3 degrees C. It's way to hot already.

However, some even more devestateimg things could happen if the earth warmed up. Theere could be large changes in our atmosphere, and flooding of costal cities.

[andrea]

You say "I can’t do much to stop global warming" but you are actually doing very much with your alimentation style. In fact, avoiding to eat meat is probably the most effective action a single person can do against global waming:

From http://www.nutritionecology.org/panel1/intro.html

Global warming and acid rain
----------------------------

Global warming is caused by energy consumption, because the main energy sources in today's world are carbon-rich fuels which, when burned, emit carbon dioxide or other planet-blanketing gases. As noted above, livestock farming is a major factor in the increase of use of such fuels. But livestock also emit global-warming gases directly, as a by-product of digestion. Cattle send a significant amount of methane, a potent global-warming gas, into the air. [WWI2004]

Research in the UK indicates that cattle and sheep gut fermentation is responsible for 95 per cent of methane produced from farming, with the rest created from slurry and manure. The same study shows that one third of nitrous oxide emissions come from slurry and manure, while 39 per cent of the nation's ammonia emissions are also derived from animal farms. [CIWF2002]

Moreover, the high ammonia content of animal wastes is a major cause of acid rain.

[Arturo]

The only link you need:

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2521677.ece

[Arturo]

The thing that most people don't seem to get is that the atmosphere is only about 15 miles thick. We can (and are) definitely changing the composition of the air.

"the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by humans is miniscule,"

This is true, but remember the expression about a single straw being able to break a camel's back. Humans seem to be upsetting the balance.

[zlh]

global warming or not, we can't afford to rely on oil from politically hostile and tumultuous regions any longer. gasoline has got to go.

[Z-Oomp]

I must give kudos where due. Fantastic post and overall blog and I'm certain it will remain as such.

Loving your work from down under.

[Sabine Dinis Blochberger]

Lots of rethorical questions follow. I mean to make you think about them.

Does it really matter if we are causing the climate change? Don't you want to live in a harmful chemicals free environment? Don't you like to look at trees and flowers? What about all those cute or impressive animals?
What's the use of all our "comfort" when we are poisoned every day (you can look up the Detox campaign by WWF (www.panda.org))?

In conclsion, it would be worthwhile to live in a sustainable way, that doesn't poison us or the environment. So make a little effort, a smaller car can do the same job for example.

[redblue]

Even scarier: read court opinions of any case (major or otherwise) all the way from trial to appeals to the supremes. Most every single one of them, including dissenting/overturned opinions, sound very very reasonable. Because they are well written they appear to be authoritative, well thought out and gosh jolly deserving of being the law of the land.
This is the judiciary version of being tall with a good haircut. There are enough self contradictory laws on the books that a judge can justify any ruling that they pass as long as they write it really really well.

[John S]

Why should people care? As the earth warms up people will move towards the poles. You know in Roman times they were growing crops in places that are now too cold. That aside I think that anything that makes people think about how they are using any limited resource is a good thing. Modern man is greedy. This needs to change.

Global warming is a political issue. They say you should never talk about politics, religion, sex or money. A blog is a differnt issue and people like to get stuff off of their chest in internet blogs, but c'mon Scott, the global warming thing has been done in many places. It's just naked comment baiting.

[Silvox]

Global warming too big of an issue to me, I concern gas price more.

[j]

http://universe-review.ca/I09-15-warming1.jpg

http://universe-review.ca/I09-15-warming2.jpg

http://universe-review.ca/I09-15-warming4.jpg

[Swoerd]

Still, by your definition, it would be stupid not to listen to most of the experts (scientists), would'nt it?

[Mrs L]

Earth is big. We are small. It's the height of hubris to declare that we make any significant difference by our choice of light bulbs.

[Beaker]

Yep, same old fanatical squaking on both sides of the issue. Scott, you do know how to stir up a hornets' nest.

I don't ask anyone to believe in global warming. Just think about the rest of us before you go throwing trash out the window of your car as you go by me on the highway. Governments shouldn't have to get involved. It's just common sense to conserve resources and watch what we dump.

On the other hand, judging by some of the comments to the effect of "take your belief in global warming and shove them" into consideration, I can see why we have to legislate. People cannot even be considerate in type!

[Des]

So the planet is warming. But when I think about it, I can't agree with the scientists who say this warming was caused by humans. This is for three reasons:
1. Scientists clearly don't know as much about how the universe works as they would like the public to believe. I guess mainstream science has a need for the public's credible acceptance, in much the same way fairies need for children to believe in them, or else they will disappear. Any number of scientists can present their findings in whatever way they like to prove whatever point they wish to make, but at the end of the day they're still human, still motivated by anthropocentric arrogance and still phenomenally short-sighted (scientists can only comment upon the things they can actually observe, and expect to be taken seriously).
2. Is it just me, or aren't there a large number of rather significant things in the universe that might be more responsible for things like global warming than people? The Sun, for example, which does all of the warming, is poorly understood by scientists and liable to vary in its intensity for whatever reasons?
3. Once an issue becomes politicised, you can no longer expect to believe a fucking thing you see or hear in any form of media.

The big questions are:
1. Who is really going to profit from all this Global Warming scare-mongering? Who's behind this push?
2. Why does Al Gore's movie winning an Oscar lend credibility in the public's eyes to the arguments presented within it?
3. Why am I hearing a lot more shit about humans causing global warming than alternative views? And why do the proponents of the former always complain so much like they're not getting enough publicity?
4. What's the motivating force behind some governments accepting holus-bolus the claims of global warming zealots and legislating against certain human behaviours, whereas other governments hold fast against the tide and rationally expect some kind of reasoned debate to take place first?
5. Why aren't more people asking questions about why this whole pile of bullshit firmly places two main areas in the firing-line, namely the USA for its fossil fuel dependence (read: decadence) and the developing nations, for their large-scale industrialisation (which tends to be largely in cahoots with Western nations)? Who could conceivably want to see them a) falter, or b) be steered in other directions?
6. Has anyone else noticed how scarily eschatological the Left/Socialists/Greens are becoming over this issue? At that Live Earth concert you watch - they're going to be handing out sandwich boards with "The End is Nigh" written on them.

[Jenny]

What amazes me is how much energy is spent on deciding who is responsible for global warming. Why does it matter? If climate change is going to cause horrific changes, shouldn't we preparing for it like we do for hurricanes and earthquakes?

That being said, everything I've seen proposed for addressing climate change seems totally ineffective and unrealistic. Unilateral efforts by a country (or by a city - what is Berkeley thinking) is pretty much useless. Asking China or India to freeze emissions is almost cruel. I spent some time in India. Most places only had electricity a few hours of day, if at all. Ice is almost unexistent. This was a few years ago, but there's no way the average citizen there enjoys the quality of life today that American's enjoyed in the 70's.

And, realistically, no one wants to return to life as it was in the 70's. No internet, home computers & wasting time surfing, no big screen TVs, fabulous home stereos, crappy lighting, small homes, limited AC - I think people have incredibly short memories. I think most supporters of reducing CO2 emissions think that they can do their part by driving a Prius. That won't produce the short of changes that the environmentalists are pushing for.

The most humorous suggestion I've seen for reducing CO2 emissions is for people to stop having kids (seriously, not from Scott's blog). Yes, if we stop reproducing, who cares about greenhouse emissions?

[michael]

One of my professors in college pointed out that the planet was going through cycles of global warming and ice ages for eons before man came onto the scene, and that we are still in the warming phase from the last ice age just a few thousand years ago. I highly recommend reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" http://crichton-official.com/fear/

[Tigerhawkvok]

The correct answer? No one has any idea what the hell is causing Global Warming.

We know people have some nonzero impact on it.
We know the systematics of measurements are hard.
We know that external effects have impact on it.
We know this has happened MANY times before and to much worse degrees.

The point remains that we should, whether or not we're the "main cause", try to reduce our influence. That said, the Maunder Minimum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum) coincided with the freezing of the Thames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames#Recorded_history). We know the sun has to do with it. However, try getting stellar physicists, atmospheric physicists, geologists, oceaninic chemists, biologists, geophysicists to all agree on the root cause ... they'll all say their discipline has the largest overall effect! CO2 isn't the be-all-end-all, either; methane and other greenhouse gases are important.

Additionally, its worth noting that the end result is uncertain. It may lead to an overall global cooling due to increased albedo effects, and the local temperatures will not be nice and linear with global temperatures, especially if you leave by a body of water like the Bay. Currents will change disproportionatly fast and it will have a much bigger local weather impact than just an extra heat lamp in your face.

For sake of balance to the discussion, I suggest looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=F51UEOEUE1WA3QFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0

All of those have bias, too. We simply don't have enough unambiguous data of the cause -- we have to accept that we have some unkown role and just try to reduce our impact and go with the flow.

For the record, I am an astrophysics undergraduate -- so needless to say, my view is biased towards astronomical impacts and effects.

[JQ]

OK, I have a question for those of you who don't accept that there's enough evidence for climate change.

Imagine (just for a second) that climate change was real, and was caused by humans. In this imaginary scenario, what do you think the scientific evidence would look like?

Do you imagine that there would be no counter evidence?
Do you imagine that there would be no dissenting views?
Do you really think that every scientist in the world would suddenly simultaneously realise the "truth"?

Science doesn't work that way. New theories are advanced to explain the available data, and are then tested with more data. At some point, the weight of evidence begins to obviously favour one of two conclusions: either "the theory is probably right" or "the theory is probably wrong".

For the theory that human action is causing climate change, the majority of the evidence seems to support the conclusion that the theory is probably right.

This is a wishy-washy statement. You don't have to be convinced by it. But perhaps you should ask yourself whether *any* amount of science would convince you of something that you personally find unpleasant to think about...?

[Rodger]

I have to agree with most who pretty much leave it up in the air that overall, we really do not know what the major cause of global warming is. The global climate is changing though.

However, I do have a problem with people saying it is bad for the planet. This is so full of it. Global warming and climate change may be harmful to humans; the planet will heal itself as long as we do not end up in a carbon lock.

That is the thing I would be worried about. Humans pumping CO2 into the air, as far as I am concerned, is harmless, because all the plant life on the planet sucks it out of the air, to keep the carbon cycle going. Yes we are pulling oil and coal and the like out of the ground and burning it and putting carbon back into the cycle that had been on the sideline for years, but hey, all of those fossil fuels came from plants before. So really, driving your SUV is just helping the trees grow...the higher the level of CO2 in the air, the faster plant life grows.

The people we need to stop are the ones talking about taking frozen CO2 and finding a way to burry it away. The carbon cycle is just as important as the water cycle to all living things on this planet, since all the known living things are carbon based, bloated with water. Lock either away, and life will end.

My suggestion is to drive your SUV (or in my case my V8 car) and plant a few more trees in your yard.

[Andy]

Does anyone remember the last time the sky was falling? It was the late 1990s and Y2K was going to destroy civilization and, coincidence of coincidences, it was all the fault of people making money. One of the "proofs" this was going to happen was all the "information" about it. Funny.

Frankly I'm tired of hearing about global warming whenever the temperature climbs above the mythical "norm". I hold Samuel Clemens' opinion of statistics: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

And there's obviously politics involved. So I will listen to anyone's theory on global warming under the following conditions:
1. Give me one reason we whould be fighting the war in Iraq.
2. Explain to me why:
a. Trickle-down economics always works; and
b. Socialism always fails.
3. Please provide one good reason we should suspend the 22nd amendment for the 2008 US presidential elections.
If Mel Martinez would sign off on your answers, I'm happy to listen to your evidence about global warming. It's the only way I can think of to get the politics out of it.

There's probably someone out there who's a Republican, conservative, and pro-industry that has objectively examined the evidence and concluded global-warming is a threat to human life on the planet. If so, why hasn't that person been thrust into the limelight by the global-warming movement?

[Warren Wong]

Proponents on both sides of this issue are arguing a moot point. It doesn’t matter if people caused Global Warming or if it is naturally occurring. Humans don’t have the ability to live through an Ice Age or massive flooding, tornados and hurricanes. The important question is can Humans stop Global Warming and can the World agree to implement the solution.

[M. Finstrom Jr]

You Should Read State of Fear By Michael Crichton. Should help you "research" Use his Bibiography.

[Naked Desserts]

Yea, global warming is not caused by humans; smoking does not cause cancer...

Bye Bye Brains.

[Belsage]

If I light a small fire on your kitchen table, it will burn happily, barely noticed if you don't decide to have lunch, until it catches something else on fire and proceeds to burn the house down.

We produce lots of different gasses, and they all go somewhere: much of it ends up in Canada (thanks, guys) in the snow, others end up in the oceans. The problem is that the oceans can only carry so much before they fill up.

It is unfortunate that many nations that need to spit stuff into the atmosphere won't get the opportunity to do so, but they wouldn't have had the opportunity, anyway; it's against market forces to allow these countries to develop unless they have something to sell to more industralized countries.

Scientists that get public publicity do so because they're in the minority--it's the minority opinion that sells the entertainment that used to be actual news. [Scott, the book on Influence was excellent, thanks for the recommendation. It discusses the strength of the media for skewing public opinion towards minority events and ideas. Sheeple indeed!]

I'm no expert either. So this is how I decided it was probably real and our fault:

1/. All of the real, working scientists I know in the environmental field think Global Warming is real, and caused by people. (This is the Big Reason. I trust my clever friends. I do not have the time to spend 10 years studying the field.)

2/. The overwhelming majority of climate change deniers are either not scientists, or are earning their money from prejudiced sources (sources that profit from Global Warming, in one way or another).

3/. Climate change deniers used to say Global Warming wasn't happening. When it was proved that it was happening, they changed their tune to say that it's happening, but it's not the fault of the people making money from it.

4/. Climate change deniers have the same smirk that the "experts" from tobacco companies used to trot out to say smoking didn't cause cancer.

5/. Sadly, the companies that profit from Global Warming are going to spend a lot of money attempting to convince people that "it's not our fault, and can we please go back to making lots of money now, thank you?". I know how little money Real Scientists usually have. So I'm unwilling to trust any