Global Warming – Part 2

Apparently the two most common points of view on global warming, ferociously held, are these:

1. The earth is warming up.
2. The earth is warming up.

A few people have figured out that the only real question is whether people can or should do anything to try and slow the warming. Meanwhile, everyone else is counting icebergs and polar bears and imagining they are contributing to the debate.

The question of whether people are the cause of global warming, or part of the cause, is somewhat irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter if the problem is caused by cars or farting cows or rotting leaves. If the warming is going to threaten life as we know it, the only important questions are these:

1. Are we sure global warming will cause more bad than good?
2. Realistically, can we do anything to stop it?
3. Would the costs of stopping it be more or less than the benefits?

I’m fairly certain the answer to all three questions is “Beats the shit out of me.”

Some say the cost of slowing global warming would be several hundred trillion dollars, plus stunting the development of poor countries and dooming them to another century of grinding poverty and related health problems. That’s because the poor countries are the ones that will need to burn lots of coal and oil in order to develop. You and I can slap solar panels on the roof. But Mubutu the goat herder will have to continue getting his dental work from a guy with a rock. If he tries to build a steel plant, life on earth will cease.

If we accept the high expense of combating global warming, and it turns out we can’t make a dent in it no matter what we do, or the earth cools on its own for reasons we didn’t forsee, we’ve really screwed the pooch. It would be the biggest fuckup of all time.

Humans are wired to put more weight on avoiding potential huge fuckups than to pursue nebulous benefits to future generations. I see no hope of that changing. So regardless of how sure the scientists are that human activity is causing most of the global warming, it won’t have much impact on policies.

The other thing that struck me about the debate on global warming is that both sides are so obviously full of shit. I presume there is lots of truth buried beneath the steaming mounds of manure, but I’m not dedicated enough to dig it out. For example, a few readers pointed me to this article on the myths about global warming, as an example of a shining light of clarity:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

But I had the opposite reaction when I read it. It just looked like propaganda to me, independent of the question of whether humans are causing global warming.

For homework, read the 26 myths and see if you can find the glaring omissions and biases. In the first myth, about human contributions to carbon dioxide being too tiny to matter, the author points out how much carbon dioxide comes from natural sources, such as rotting vegetation and oceans. What’s missing is any kind of assurance that science can measure that stuff with any useful precision. Maybe it can. Maybe it can’t. I have to think it’s hard to know how much stuff is rotting at what rate all over the globe. Where’s my link to an article about peer reviewed studies showing we can measure that stuff well enough for this purpose?

The author mentions the list of 60 “leading scientists” who signed a petition asking for Canada to review its decision on the Kyoto protocol. He points out that “many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.” That’s fair. What’s missing is how many people on the list ARE active scientists in the appropriate fields. Is it two? Is it twenty? Twenty dissenters who are active in the field and willing to put their necks on the line seems like a lot to me. Two doesn’t. I’d like to know the number. An unbiased article might have said, “At least 15 of those scientists are totally credible and up to date on the science.”

Clearly there is plenty of bullshit on both sides of the debate. I’d like some clarity before I decide whether or not to kill Mubutu to save my beach house.

Comments

[Mark the Anxiety Cure Expert]

Welllllll, the way i see it unless you are Bono or President Bush or you personally have access to some nukes and you can scare people into taking your point of view, the majority of us don't have the power to impact the "globe" in it's entirey. This isnt to say you and I as individuals should just stick our heads in the sand. The way I see it if my actions or lack of actions could potentially make the world a better place for my kids or my friends or people I care about then for me it is worth the effort. If we all do a little for those we care about then whether "we" turn it around or not at least we were motivated by love and not fear...

[Terry (the car finder) Bolton]

global warming ;who is the responsible about this phenomenon? i think not only carbon dioxide is the direct reason; but the selfish use of energy resources.
another thing; if a part of the body harmed all the body will be harmed soon ;and so the globe!

[Mgmt]

Your comments are still actual 9 months after the posting.
dilbert you're my favorite.

For those who are still (in 2008...) not convinced that earth is warming up because of mens activities, you may find a lot of convincing articles here at 4rglobe.net:

http://4rglobe.net/globalwarming/index.php

Ciao.

Mgmt

[Mgmt]

Your comments are still actual 9 months after the posting.
dilbert you're my favorite.

For those who are still (in 2008...) not convinced that earth is warming up because of mens activities, you may find a lot of convincing articles here at 4rglobe.net:

http://4rglobe.net/globalwarming/index.php

Ciao.

Mgmt

[Mgmt]

Your comments are still actual 9 months after the posting.
dilbert you're my favorite.

For those who are still (in 2008...) not convinced that earth is warming up because of mens activities, you may find a lot of convincing articles here at 4rglobe.net:

http://4rglobe.net/globalwarming/index.php

Ciao.

Mgmt

[Carmax]

Buy CarMax new and used car in USA. Car max auto finance and service. Car max best price.

[gfbvbxv]

people are stranger

[gfbvbxv]

people are stranger

[gfbvbxv]

people are stranger

[gfbvbxv]

people are stranger

[gfbvbxv]

people are stranger

[gfbvbxv]

people are stranger

[Poptech]

Scientists Disputing "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory:

August H. Auer Jr., AMS Certified Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Calgary, Canada
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus, Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Michael Crichton, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard S. Courtney, PhD. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert M. Carter, Geologist, James Cook University, Australia
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Founding Director International Arctic Research Center, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Gray, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

[Tarun K Juyal]

I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon effects and causes of Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.

[Tarun K Juyal]

I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon effects and causes of Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.

[Ploffspalay]

Hi Everybody!
It seems like I know alot of you already. That seems weird, but I have been lurking as you call it for a few weeks - now its an addiction LOL! I wake up to check posts and before bed and some in between!

My name is Cheryl and I am 38 - almost 39 in a couple weeks (yuck!) and I live in Ontario, Canada about 2 hours north of the border. It's in the "boonies" as all my friends say and anyone that comes here! LOL. We have already had snow and probably more this week. It is a long winter, so more projects!! We have no cel phone service, one radio station - sometimes, and one TV station! I could get satellite but then I'd spend more time watching TV and not get anything done. I would like to get HGTV tho and the other decorating channels, but then you know what happens! [url=http://www.rib.uscourts.gov/FORUM/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1219] xanax [/url][url=http://www.behavioralconsultants.com/SportsForum/000021d8.htm] ultram [/url][url=http://www.projectmainstream.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=859] payday loans [/url][url=http://courses.cvcc.vccs.edu/ENG112_GROSS/_Chat_Room/000000cb.htm] viagra no prescription [/url][url=http://courses.cvcc.vccs.edu/ENG112_GROSS/_Chat_Room/000000c8.htm] phentermine
on sale [/url][url=http://courses.cvcc.vccs.edu/ENG112_GROSS/_Chat_Room/000000c6.htm] phentermine free shipping [/url][url=http://courses.cvcc.vccs.edu/ENG112_GROSS/_Chat_Room/000000c4.htm] phentermine capsules online [/url]

I've lived here for almost 5 years with my teenage daughter who is now 14 - 15 in Jan (another Yuck! 15!!!!)Where does the time go? The house was a hunting camp but it had insulation, septic and power, but it was very small under 500 sq ft. WE lived in one room till she was 11 in bunk beds till I carved a room out of the living room for her! It's in the middle of tons of big pine trees, so hence my username. [url=http://cscstudent.cc.edu/csc450/pland/_kbas/000000f8.htm] order xanax [/url][url=http://www.eaudrey.com/discuss/discuss/000033ee.htm] free blackjack [/url][url=http://www.eaudrey.com/discuss/discuss/000031b7.htm] cheap ambien [/url][url=http://www.eaudrey.com/discuss/discuss/000033ec.htm] cheap zoloft [/url][url=http://cscstudent.cc.edu/csc450/pland/_kbas/000000fa.htm] cheap ambien [/url][url=http://cscstudent.cc.edu/csc450/pland/_kbas/000000fb.htm] buy valium [/url][url=http://www.wavelet.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=108798] order valium [/url][url=http://www.lp112.com/forum/t
opic.asp?TOPIC_ID=332] online casinos [/url][url=http://www.eaudrey.com/discuss/discuss/000033ad.htm] auto insurance [/url][url=http://trama.buzznet.com/user/] tramadol [/url]

I have started seeing someone in Feb who I knew years before. He stopped in where I worked and he was like, what are YOU doing up here! He had been up here for 3 years too and we'd never met. He just happens to be a carpenter and that's oh so handy! This summer we added an addition on and doubled the size of the house! It's great and now my daughter has my old room, which she loves! He's also great in supporting my "habit"and helps me load and goes on hunting trips too. He even has the good idea! [url=http://www.eaudrey.com/discuss/discuss/000033f4.htm] payday loans [/url][url=http://www.buyviag.fora.pl/] buy viagra [/url][url=http://merid.netfirms.com/buy-viagra.html] buy viagra [/url][url=http://cscstudent.cc.edu/csc450/pland/_kbas/000000ff.htm] generic cialis [/url][url=http://www.eaudrey.com/discuss/discuss/000033b1.htm] bad credit loans [/url][url=http://www.eaudrey.com/discuss/discuss/000033ea.htm] cheap viagra [/url][url=http://cscstudent.cc.edu/csc450/pland/_kbas/000000f0.htm]
buy tramadol [/url][url=http://www.eaudrey.com/discuss/discuss/000033dc.htm] cheap levitra [/url][url=http://www.eaudrey.com/discuss/discuss/000033dd.htm] cheap meridia [/url][url=http://www.eaudrey.com/discuss/discuss/000033e7.htm] cheap ultram [/url][url=http://courses.cvcc.vccs.edu/ENG112_GROSS/_Chat_Room/000000bb.htm] drugstore to purchase phentermine [/url][url=http://courses.cvcc.vccs.edu/ENG112_GROSS/_Chat_Room/000000b7.htm] cheap viagra generic [/url][url=http://courses.cvcc.vccs.edu/ENG112_GROSS/_Chat_Room/000000b5.htm] buy cheap viagra [/url][url=http://buyzollo.urllogs.com] buy zoloft [/url][url=http://www.kohukohu.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2714] buy zoloft [/url][url=http://onrule.forum24.se/] online roulette [/url][url=http://onlinebjck.forum24.se/] online black jack [/url][url=http://www.atlanticfed.com]blackjack, black jack[/url][url=http://www.elvinu.com]generic viagra[/url][url=http://www.gbttulsa.com]keno[/url][url=http://www.voiceboxrox.com]generic cialis[/url]

I worked at the local garage doing bookeeping and I left in April to start my own things! It's crazy how busy I am and how I managed to do it all before working 40 hours. I am currently selling collectibles from my Dads and Grandpa's estate on ebay. I also go to the garage sales and flea markets, auctions and wherever to get tons of 'JUNK'. Also I am restoring a building down at my moms to make into a store, hopefully open in the spring! It will be antiques, new stuff and things made from salvage - lots of the items I see on here would be great! They also give me great ideas for my stuff!! I have been inspired by your creations to look at things in new ways now, I just grabbed a patterned broken flower pot and "SAW" mosaics! [url=http://www.bird-on-a-wire.com]slot machines[/url][url=http://www.sportstapeathleticproducts.com]propecia[/url][url=http://www.sondabeira.com]casino games[/url]

I have many projects on the go, I have to decorate, paint and redo the new spaces in the house, figure out the kitchen layout now. I have some furniture I want to refinish and I am also cleaning out a barn of my Grandpa before nov 30! It is full of stuff and when I see old shutters, old windows, old posts, spindles, wrought iron, I think of you guys and what I can do with them. I have a notebook beside my computer that I write down all that I am interested in and the great ideas. I also found out about you from googling mosaics and I'm so glad! I will keep you posted as I go! [url=http://www.cheap-debt-consolidation.net/debt-cons-loans.html] debt consolidation loans [/url][url=http://www.cheap-debt-consolidation.net/debt-cons-loan.html] debt consolidation loan [/url][url=http://www.cheap-debt-consolidation.net/card-debt-cons.html] credit card debt consolidation [/url][url=http://www.cheap-debt-consolidation.net/free-debt-cons.html] free debt consolidation [/url][url=http://www.xanax-r
x.net/] anxiety disorders [/url][url=http://www.xanax-rx.net/causes.html] anxiety disorder causes [/url][url=http://www.xanax-rx.net/online.html] buy xanax online [/url][url=http://www.xanax-rx.net/pain.html] xanax information [/url][url=http://www.xanax-rx.net/treat.html] anxiety disorder treatment [/url][url=http://www.xanax-rx.net/symptoms.html] anxiety disorder symptoms [/url][url=http://www.studiocitrus.com]slots[/url][url=http://www.continentalrs.com]roulette[/url][url=http://www.tamtamfemme.org] cheap auto insurance[/url]

I want to say that I enjoy coming here and seeing everyones efforts, You all have made me laugh and made me cry. I cant get over slowmedown and her creativity and verve for life. Haziemoons craft room transformation blew me away in its speed and idea. Loved the painted screens, always like to hear from Cait in Oz and am amazed at curbdivers attitude in adversity. All of your replies to bigfndl humbled me and made me realize that you are all a great bunch of people. Is there room for one more? [url=http://www.buy-viagra-rx.com] viagra [/url][url=http://www.phentermine-prescription.com] phentermine prescription [/url][url=http://www.buy-levitra-rx.com] buy levitra [/url][url=http://www.buy-cialis-4u.com] cialis [/url][url=http://www.buy-tramadol-4u.com] buy tramadol [/url][url=http://www.buy-phentermine-rx.com] phentermine [/url][url=http://www.buy-ultram-rx.com] ultram [/url][url=http://www.cheap-debt-consolidation.net/] debt consolidation [/url][url=http://www.designcommunity.com/cgi-bin/mlk?http://www.rxsslscript.com/compteur/cheap-ambien.html] cheap ambien [/url]

Sorry for the long post, I guess I've waited too long and its built up!!

Cheryl

[momento]

Finally, someone is thinking.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/287515/global_warming_mass_hysteria_or_hoax.html

[tihopilik]

Hello

I can't be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don't have anything to say recently.


Bye

[govokinolij]

Hello

Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!

Bye

[John]

Hi Scott,

Another well produced scary video for you from abc TV Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

John

[Adrian D.]

There was a comment to the effect that conversions among scientists are one-directional. Unfortunately, this is mostly because of threats. I remember reading a "The Skeptic" column in Scientific American from a scientist who, although he said he now belives in human-caused global warming, states that he was told that if he didn't agree, then nothing he wrote about any science (even unrelated to global warming) would ever be published again.

[Scott Alan Miller]

The thing that amazes me is not the somewhat reasonable viewpoints of humans causing or nature/sun causing global warming but people claiming that the earth is getting colder. Often to support this viewpoint they claim that since there was snow in the northeast US in April (um, there normally is) that clearly global warming has not made New York a tropical paradise so it must not exist.

Sheeple. ARGH.

[Bob]

"It just looked like propaganda to me, independent of the question of whether humans are causing global warming."

QFT. Newscientist is really popular with non-scientist for a reason. They are simply not crediable anymore (Zero point energy anyone...).

I am somewhat shocked. you have displayed objectivity (what ever that is) in the debate, and so few do. Its good to see.

Why is there such a debate. I guess we like to think that we live in interesting times. That we casue everything, that we matter. That we can predict. Perhaps...

At this point in time, its gets newspapers sold and people watching your movie.... Do we need another reason.

[Mike Street]

I am very suspicious of anyone who uses the term 'carbon' when discussing global warming. It just shows a total ignorance of any science whatsoever. Carbon is a naturally occurring solid element, usually black (graphite) but, if you're lucky, also available in transparent (diamond). It is also necessary to all life on this planet (carbon I mean, not diamond despite what your girlfriend says).

The supposed generator of global warming is carbon dioxide, a colourless, odourless gas. Not the same thing at all.

[Larry]

Another 2 cents:

1 I'm now convinced that the earth is warming. Helping to convince me is that I've lived in the same habitat for 20+ years and it's definitely changing.

2 We've put a lot more carbon and other GHG in the atmosphere. I can't rule it out as the primary source of climate change.

3 There is no short-term fix. To reverse climate change (see 1) we have to take more carbon out of the atmosphere than we put in. If we go to 0 emissions, the world will continue to warm, as it has been doing lately. If we go to flat emissions, the world will warm faster. If we merely slow GHG growth, the world will warm faster still.

4 Technology is improving, and at an accelerating rate. Medium/long-term, there are lots of innovations that could make negative-carbon feasible. New materials, more efficient processes from photovoltaics to oil refining, better batteries, carbon sequestration, next-gen nuclear, and on and on. But none of these are here today, and once they are here, deploying them in quantity will take a generation. We should accelerate all of this. One technology I don't see a big future for is biofuels, because producing the bio competes with food production, and is otherwise highly disruptive to the environment.

5 Short-term, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit from various forms of conservation. Individually, we could reduce our consumption by a significant amount, and collectively, we could encourage each other even more. By low hanging fruit, I mean stuff that isn't hugely disruptive to our way of life. I don't see enough of it to make a big impact.

6 The best way to encourage conservation is with higher energy prices. Higher prices encourage everyone, not just say, new car buyers, to make smarter decisions. Whether it's the setting on the thermostat, the pressure on the gas pedal, or whether to pick an efficient CFL bulb instead of an incandescent, price matters. Whether via cap/auction/trade or higher taxes, we could quickly and substantially affect our GHG output at a relatively low cost.

7 We shouldn't rule out the currently far-out ideas about geoengineering. One or some of them could prove to be a low-cost way to mitigate climate change.

8 The politics is corrupt on both sides. The environmentalists are currently ascendant, but it's mostly figuring out ways for climate change companies and other organizations to make a nice living, whether they help or not. They deniers are mostly energy-dependent industries with their own vested interests. We can hope that the debate will produce some light, but little has come out so far. The use of the term "denier" highlights the problem.

9 Mubutu has as much right to a Hummer and air conditioning as I do (i.e., he has to pay for them, just as I do). Any global system has to give him the same emissions "quota" that it gives me. If i want to emit more than he does (at the moment I certainly do) then I should buy some of his quota - at the market price.

[Kyle]

It is quite clear that golbal warming does exist, and that most scientist suporting the other side of the debate are paid of. It should be admitted too, though, that poeple on both side of the debate do act like idiots at times. The thing is that there are many good, rational people on the global warming is bad argument, and only a few idiots, there is the same number of idiots in the other side.

Also all this bull shit about how much it will cost pisses me off. Th eonly people who will pay are big buisness, and the bastards earn enough money already. The idiot on the movie who complains that envoromental people are anti humen is really quite stupid. That same bastard got paid thousands of dollars buy big buisnesses to defend them with his "credible" name, I wonder how much of that he gave to struggling third world companies.

Also any real restricitons will not come out of a U.N resolution, it will come from individual state legislature. The number one way to do this is quite obvious, tax the bastards till they stop, and fine them while you're at it, then use that money to start doing whatever you need to do to clean up the enviorment.

I have a lot more to say but can't be bothered to say it.

[Borjan]

To reiterate my point from my comment on Global Warming Pt.1:

if GW is happening it wouldn't be so much a problem if there wasn't so many of us.

[Bono]

blah blah and more blah - could it be perhaps the reason we have all these problems and feel good blaming others (i.e America and the wealthy nations) for all the world's evils is because we 'mankind' have rejected the true solution of our problems, so instead we wander around like blind gnats, groping in the darkness - always crying the sky is falling, always try to come up with new laws and dictatorships to enforce fallible unjust ordinances to control the minions.

Read these passages, written 4,000 years ago - pretty much tells us where we are doesn't it.

Deu 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if you will not listen to the voice of the LORD your God, to observe to do all his commands and his statutes which I command you this day, that all these curses shall come on you, and overtake you.
Deu 28:16 Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
Deu 28:17 Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading trough.
Deu 28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your livestock, and the young of your flock.
Deu 28:19 Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
Deu 28:20 The LORD will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke, in all that you put your hand to do, until you are destroyed, and until you perish quickly; because of the evil of your doings, by which you have forsaken me.
Deu 28:21 The LORD will make the pestilence cleave to you, until he has consumed you from off the land, where you go in to possess it.
Deu 28:22 The LORD will strike you with consumption, and with fever, and with inflammation, and with fiery heat, and with the sword, and with blight, and with mildew; and they shall pursue you until you perish.
Deu 28:23 Your sky that is over your head shall be brass, and the earth that is under you shall be iron.
Deu 28:24 The LORD will make the rain of your land powder and dust: from the sky shall it come down on you, until you are destroyed.

Pretty cool huh?

[Susan]

I have to say, aside from the compelling evidence as to the stupidity of the human race this debate has provided me, I find myself highly amused by the choice of "Mobutu the goat herder".

Was that deliberate? Or was it just your brain molecules sparking randomly?

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

[It was random. -- Scott]

[Josh]

What finally convinced me was when I began reading PRO global warming sites (see, e.g., http://realclimate.org) and my bullshit detector started firing non-stop.

It's easy to be swayed by slick propaganda - and like Scott, I have been swayed in both directions by it on this issue. But the theory of AGW continues to have small unexplainable holes that, every time they appear, get plugged by the climatological equivalent of the Ptolemaic "epicycles". "10 yrs ago: Look at the climate record - CO2 and temperature are perfectly correlated." "Today: Oh, actually CO2 lags temperature by 800 years, but that just means that it still explains MOST of the correlation." ::bullshit detector fires wildly:: When the data reverses sign and your theory remains intact, I get suspicious.

And I'm sorry, but we claim to have a consensus and yet the science relies heavily on what are essentially under-constrained models (GCMs) with more parameters than data points. How can such a thing lead to consensus?

I've been wrong before, I'll probably be wrong again, and I may be wrong about this. But for now, I need to trust my bullshit detector and it's definitely going CRAZY on this one.

[Susan]

Good job, Scott. Admitting your ignorance is the first step to wisdom.

Now, all of you, either do the reasearch or shut the fuck up. And by research I mean go out, learn about the science, read the papers for and against. Draw yourself up a handy-dandy little "for" and "against" column, and see what it looks like after you check out both sides.

Some starting rules;
1. If you think what you read in "State of Fear" counts as evidence, I suggest you head over to Europe to look for the Holy Grail a la The Davinci Code.
2. If you think "random blog poster" counts as evidence, I suggest you go tell your boss the sky is falling because the guy on the subway told you so.
3. If you think that the local weather, your friends/relatives opinions, your favourite loudmouthed radio personality or your latest conspiracy theory counts as evidence, I suggest you go stand in a corner and smash your head against the wall a few times. Keep doing this until some modicum of common sense returns to you or you have suffered irreparable brain damage. Trust me, you'll be doing the world a favour.

[Chris P]

I think global warming can be tied directly to population. There are just too many damn 98.6 degree people on this Earth and their body heat is warming up the Earth.

[Goran Mitrovic]

you americans are so ignorant... you don't care about global warming, but, all of you drive toyota priuses, possibly the ugliest and the most pointless car on the earth

[Peter Johnston]

The world is engaged in one massive displacement activity. In 1900 there were 1 billion people on the planet, now there are nearly 6 billion and the graph is going up exponentially. With this many people using fossil fuels and breathing out CO2 there's bound to be an effect. But which world leader is courageous enough to tell half the world they have to die or at least stop having babies. And which people do we stop - people in Alabama - or perhaps Capitol Hill. George Bush is doing a good job of reducing the world population but unless there are more like him we'll never get it down to a manageable level. So instead we muck about with people's cars and bin collections. Really it is just a big opportunity for the people who like to tell others what to do to restrict the rest of us in the name of a bigger power. Bit like that God thing really!

[Nobuddy]

The world's climate has been cycling between warm and ice age pretty much forever; it's silly to think that this has come to a halt just because WE'RE here, not to mention that we've coincidentally caused the exact same process to happen due to our actions.

I've read that one average volcanic eruption shoots out 10,000 times more ozone-eroding and greenhouse chemicals than we've produced in our entire time on Earth; the rebuttal at the time was that those upwardly-rocketing chemicals somehow didn't reach the ozone, but our aerosols did... lol!!

[Nobuddy]

The world's climate has been cycling between warm and ice age pretty much forever; it's silly to think that this has come to a halt just because WE'RE here, not to mention that we've coincidentally caused the exact same process to happen due to our actions.

I've read that one average volcanic eruption shoots out 10,000 times more ozone-eroding and greenhouse chemicals than we've produced in our entire time on Earth; the rebuttal at the time was that those upwardly-rocketing chemicals somehow didn't reach the ozone, but our aerosols did... lol!!

[Alexandre]

Ok, serisously, what the hell. The reason why occidental countries should slow their pollution levels isn't only to prevent global warming, come on! In this debate, everyone forgets about polution and it's direct impact : acid rains, polution of the forest, disapearing of the wild life, ... Those are serious reasons for recycling and every hippie thing you got to do in order for your children's children to be able to experience wildlife et large green spaces.

[André]

Frankly, I am a little embarrassed for Scott here, especially since he's obviously a very bright guy. It's unfortunate that he's gone so far astray. He should have stuck with his first instinct of trusting the scientists. The Durkheim documentary is total joke and taking it seriously if even briefly is regrettable.

There are a number of problems with this post, a few random points:

-The question of whether human activity is involved is hardly irrelevant since it has a direct bearing on the second of the "only important questions". The warming is heavily attributable to human GHG emissions and land use changes and any viable attempt to mitigate it stems from acknowledging these facts. I don't deny that making the necessary changes will be challenging but it is definitely possible and looking more likely as support for action has grown dramatically in the past few years. The bigger uncertainty is whether enough will be done in time to avert the worst impacts.

-The concern about he impact of of mitigation on the global poor is noble but misguided. Adverse climate change impacts (e.g., sea level rise, draught) will likely affect third world countries disproportionally. Further, the mitigation interventions with the lowest marginal cost tend to be in developing countries. Developed countries can pay to pluck these low hanging fruit (say through the Clean Development Mechanism) to compensate for some of their emissions.

-We are in fact pretty sure climate change effects will be negative on balance. For an overview: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf
True, there are some benefits such as the potential for increased crop yields (for 1-3 degrees of warming but not beyond that) but they are likely outweighed by a concordant increase in extreme weather such as drought, floods, and an increase in invasive alien species, not to mention sea level rise.

-There is strong evidence that the sign on the cost-benefit for mitigation is positive. See Bill Nordhaus's work for a conservative but rigorous treatment: http://www.econ.yale.edu/%7Enordhaus/homepage/web%20table%20of%20contents%20102599.htm
Of course the IPCC WGIII AR4 SPM is also worth reading although it is not a CBA. http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/docs/FAR/ApprovedSPM0405rev4b.pdf

-I fully agree that the uncertainties in the economic modelling are large. However, the uncertainties strengthen the case for action as it is better to "purchase an insurance policy" against catastrophic risk. Martin Weitzman has a good albeit technical discussion of this in a working paper for the Journal of Economic Literature regarding the Stern Review: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/Weitzman/papers/JELSternReport.pdf

Two top Australian climate economists express some similar sentiments in a more accessible and brief statement here: http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/05/17/reply-to-davidson-and-robson/

The last link is highly recommended for those that want to read a bottom-line rationale for mitigation without wading through a lot of material.

I'm also a mystified by his criticisms of the New Scientist piece. So what if they don't list the precise number of credible scientists on the petition. Even if it is as many as twenty (doubtful given the number of cranks and retirees but anything's possible) it's a trivial number compared to the 10,000+ on the other side and the mountains of evidence. Given a large enough sample there will always be extreme outliers on any issue, even amongst experts.

The criticism on the atmospheric carbon budget is also bewildering. The piece explains how the human contribution is identified through isotope testing. References include the IPCC Working Group I AR4 SPM and a study put out by the British Geological Society. The SPM in particular puts the evidence of the human influence front and centre in the first five pages. How could Scott miss this? I believe others have commented on this but at the risk of beating a dead horse I refer you to this brief treatment in Physics Today:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html

You can read a comprehensive overview of the carbon budget here: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm

I'm not terribly interested in scrutinizing the rest of the New Scientist piece since it covers very familiar, well-worn territory but it seems decent upon a superficial skim.

Sorry for carrying on too long. I sincerely hope Scott will spend a bit more time reading the copious evidence for mitigation before concluding the answers to his important questions are "beats the shit out of me". There's good reason the preponderance of experts takes this seriously and more and more "convert". As they said about East Germany and the so-called attractiveness of communism, people crossing the wall tend to be going in one direction.

[Steve]

I agree with you entirely Scott.

And I'm not sure about all that polly anna crap these so called "medical Authorities" have been saying about cigarettes. I'm not saying that a lot of people don't get sick mind, but hey it could be something else right?

When it comes to reasearch on Global Warming, I'll be much more comfortable with trustworthy folk from Exxon and Shell than some bunch of long haired tree huggers...

[HyperActiveX]

"I’d like some clarity before I decide whether or not to kill Mubutu to save my beach house."

Dude - poor taste. You've dropped a couple of notches on my scale. You don't have to go overboard with the cavalier attitude - your humour works pretty well as it is.

[Waxy]

You say "So regardless of how sure the scientists are that human activity is causing most of the global warming, it won’t have much impact on policies." but I have to disagree. Politicians will change their policies if they think it can win votes. And it will win votes as the media have gone nuts about Global Warming as its an easy topic to do stories about with lots of easy shots to get. What would you rather report on ... the front line of the Iraq War or get sent to New Caledonia to do a story on the ocean rising? The government needs an issue to polarise the voters with propaganda and global warming is a lot better choice than the Iraq War and before that the Cold War. So if nothing elase global warming will be useful as a political football and I say bring it on as I'm sick of wars being used as for political gains.

[Blue Mikey]

Mark,
Coffee for breakfast every morning. Just coffee and more coffee.

I would say that any time one side of an issue has valuable vested interests to protect and invests huge amounts of money into directed propaganda, that side is always wrong. I don't even need to hear what the issue is.

I don't much care about global warming, though, because it's already too late. The kind, gentle Al Gore approach of encouraging token action and offering gentle reassurance is, sorry to say, complete mouthfart. If we put EVERY conservation and anti-GW proposal extant into effect the day after tomorrow, we couldn't even arrest the rate of carbon emissions INCREASES to the rate that exists this second. Holding carbon emissions to current levels with NO increases is clearly an impossibility, even if there were no debate at all and every nation were 100% compliant, and we are completely, utterly incapable of REDUCING overall carbon emissions, no matter how long we had to do it--one year, ten years, whatever. We can't do it. We're helpless.

Then again, evolution and the environment are very much like the free market: they will adjust. It's just that nagging question of how many people will get hurt in the adjustment, and how badly, that should concern us.

So we're really reduced to two options: 1.) to hope that leading scientific giants like John Stossel, Michael Crichton, and Dennis Miller are right and we have nothing to worry about, or 2.) attempt to prepare for the consequences of global warming--chiefly increasing droughts putting pressure on food production and mass population dislocations. I personally think it would be prudent to address #2 even in the unlikely event that #1 turns out to be the pleasant surprise the future has in store for us, but then, that's just me.

--Blue Mikey

[Cincinnati_Bob]

What an incredible scam global warming is. Embrace the change if there is one. Improve life today, let tomorrow's folks improve tomorrow. They'll have better science and tools to work on it. Relocate Jimmy Buffet. He needs new material anyway.

No matter what the subject, mankind and its scientists have historically been so far off the target as to make it supremely embarrassing to anyone tempted to stand on the rooftops and proclaim "I Have the Answer!" Granted they are usually dead when the data comes out to show how absurd they were..

Anyway, the fact that they are not embarrassed to do this over and over proves their ignorance and/or insatiable greed beyond doubt.

[Blue Mikey]

Mark,
Coffee for breakfast every morning. Just coffee and more coffee.

I would say that any time one side of an issue has valuable vested interests to protect and invests huge amounts of money into directed propaganda, that side is always wrong. I don't even need to hear what the issue is.

I don't much care about global warming, though, because it's already too late. The kind, gentle Al Gore approach of encouraging token action and offering gentle reassurance is, sorry to say, complete mouthfart. If we put EVERY conservation and anti-GW proposal extant into effect the day after tomorrow, we couldn't even arrest the rate of carbon emissions INCREASES to the rate that exists this second. Holding carbon emissions to current levels with NO increases is clearly an impossibility, even if there were no debate at all and every nation were 100% compliant, and we are completely, utterly incapable of REDUCING overall carbon emissions, no matter how long we had to do it--one year, ten years, whatever. We can't do it. We're helpless.

Then again, evolution and the environment are very much like the free market: they will adjust. It's just that nagging question of how many people will get hurt in the adjustment, and how badly, that should concern us.

So we're really reduced to two options: 1.) to hope that leading scientific giants like John Stossel, Michael Crichton, and Dennis Miller are right and we have nothing to worry about, or 2.) attempt to prepare for the consequences of global warming--chiefly increasing droughts putting pressure on food production and mass population dislocations. I personally think it would be prudent to address #2 even in the unlikely event that #1 turns out to be the pleasant surprise the future has in store for us, but then, that's just me.

--Blue Mikey

[Kilgore J. Trout]

Scientists are self-centered weasels like the rest of us.

I remember the coming ice age at the end of the 70s. It was kind of cold back then into the early 80s. It seemed hot 15 years before that.

If polar bear cease to exist in nature, does it really matter in my day-to-day existence. Maybe some giant rock is going to come to earth looking for extinct cetaceans like in one of the Star Trek movies, except in the case it wil be ursines. Then we'll be in deep shit.

One thing I've noticed is that my landscape shrubbery seems to be growing at an accelerated rate. Must be the extra CO2.

[tord]

I think debate about the greenhouse effect is interesting, but even I, as a scientifically trained observer working in the field find the dicussions on the topic heard to follow. Personally I prefer to see it as a debate on fuel efficiency and energy security. The deabte makes a lot more practical sense that way

[Theo Bee]

I thnk we should have a closer look at the benefits of global warming rather just the negative panick side.

Plants need CO2 warmth and water to grow better, the projected conditions will provide all three, the projected population growth will surely need it.

Trying to reduce C02 emissions in a panic is also all good, it means we are targeting increased plant efficiencies and encourage alternate energy sources, as said many a time, any fool can waste coal and oil resources by just burning them.

The real gains to be made are when we can discourage the Umsil family from switching their cooking from camel manure to oil or coal, they need to skip that step and go direct to some form of solar.

It could be done though the carbon trading mechanism, industry can supply say a free solar cooker to them worth six credit points or some such thing.

In addition manure makes good fertilizer.

Theo

[Jim Geraghty]

A number of people have posted comments along the lines of...
"I don't know whay you are confused, I just did a Wikipedia search on global warming and got all the facts immediately."

When you are dealing with people that think like this, you know it is time for global warming (or something) to do some thinning-out of the species.

No wonder you couldn't be arsed to look into this topic before now. There are no experts, but millions of them.

[jim]

Back in the seventies scientists were predicting that we were in the beginnings of a new ice age. They seem to have forgotten all about that prediction now though.

[Tophe]

From the Introduction to Bertrand Russell's 'Sceptical Essays' (1928):

"I wish to propose for the reader's favorable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.

First of all, I wish to guard myself against being thought to take up an extreme position. ... [Pyrrho] maintained that we never know enough to be sure that one course of action is wiser than another. In his youth, ... he saw his teacher with his head stuck in a ditch, unable to get out. After contemplating him for some time, he walked on, maintaining that there was no sufficient ground for thinking that he would do any good by pulling the old man out. ... Now I do not advocate such heroic scepticism as that. I am prepared to admit the ordinary beliefs of common sense, in practice if not in theory. I am prepared to admit any well-established result of science, not as certainly true, but as sufficiently probable to afford a basis for rational action.
....
There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. .... Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."

[Tygerblade]

I don't think it would kill Mubutu to allow new technologies such as electric cars a chance to compete on the open market: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

I've always heard rumors of technology patents for more gas efficient automobile technology being bought up and supressed by oil companies and gas manufacturers as far back as the 1930's. Now an example of that process has been caught on film. My only surprise was that GM actually produced the car at all.

I can only think that Mubutu would have more, cheaper oil available if Americans used less gas themselves. The only ones who would make "slightly less" money are oil companies and the industries that rely upon oil. They are not willing to make "slightly less" though, and they apparently have the power to prevent technological growth and expansion in our country. Which means the Japanese will continue to dominate the economic world, because they are actually capable of adapting to change.

Would an electric car prevent global warming? I doubt it would have any significant impact on it's own. But people who chose to purchase one would probably feel that they were making a difference, and scientists don't know enough yet to prove them wrong.

Hybrids still produce emissions, unlike fully electric cars, don't get significantly better gas mileage than many cars that run on gasoline, and on the whole are an inferior product to both types of cars, as far as power, speed and cargo space are concerned. Maybe that will change as the technology grows.

[Chris]

Try taking a look here for data:

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

[John D]

Scott, you've insightfully boiled the matter down to the Big Three Questions (is it a bad thing, can we realistically do anything, and what's the cost). But to simply conclude "beats the shit out of me" is not only a surrender to the daunting task of sorting out the facts, but also by default leaves a person in the camp of those who advocate no action. It's a sort of intellectual "pocket veto."

It matters if we're part of the cause because that largely determines whether we dare hope do anything, beyond migrating inland. So I went and read New Scientist's 26 Myths for myself.

Sure enough, the article referring to the 60 petition signatories is hastily written and inadequate. By itself, that doesn't make it propaganda, though, nor should one make heros of the few scientists who are bucking the trend of other thousands who now see a human connection. Don't fall for the underdog effect; remember, 10 years ago, the GW prophets were the underdogs!

As for the other 25 myths, frankly, I believe they made a good case against each. One can easily be overwhelmed by the supporting graphs, but if you wade through them, the picture that emerges as a whole is very well balanced. They freely admit that carbon dioxide is not the only factor that can change climate, nor the biggest potential factor, and that non-linear feedback mechanisms exist that we don't fully understand. There are plenty of examples shown.

But the essential point is, when all is sorted out, NONE of those other factors accounts for the last 150 years. The sun has been relatively stable, volcanic activity has been way below the magnitude of past catastrophic climate events, and even our decimation of the rainforests has had less effect on CO2 balance than I would have thought. All the natural forces currently having an impact can indeed be measured with sufficient accuracy to know they are tiny compared to human activity during the past 150 years.

We do know quite accurately how much coal and petroleum have been produced each year during that span, and we know by experiment how much CO2 is released when those products are burned. We have quite good measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels for the same span, and they track closely the amount being released by human activity. We know from laboratory work how much warming to expect from different amounts of greenhouse gases, and we have increasingly solid temperature records to indicate that such warming is actually occuring at the predicted rate.

The IPCC scientists aren't just guessing when they say it's 90% certain we're behind the current trend. All that's really unclear is, if we don't come up with a good solution, will the warming fortuitously be blunted by one of the negative feedback mechanisms the earth possesses; or will it go far enough to trigger one of the positive feedback loops instead, and make the change irreparably worse?

It will matter a great deal to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren whether we've left them "nebulous benefits" or one of our "huge fuckups." Failing to choose is itself a choice. Sometimes it's better to make an informed choice (informed by prompt and intensive research, not the voices in our leader's head) than to do nothing and stand a 90% chance of being wrong anyway.

Meanwhile, if Mubutu lives near flowing water, let's send him a minihydroelectric plant so his dentist won't have to power his drill from a coal-fired plant. This is an idea that is, in fact, taking off in some parts of East Africa right now.

[New Mexi-cow]

Let's all beat up Scott for being "lazy" and not doing enough research -- all ya gotta do is just Google it! Oh wait: yesterday Scott himself admitted that he had not the mad skills to analyze, nor did any of us. We're all just the blind guys feeling up the elephant here.

Kyoto's a joke: credible, pro-global warming scientists say that it will cost our economy a crippling amount, yet only put off the inevitable for 3 years.

But so what.

I say the problem isn't Global Warming: us lowly humans are wholly responsible, or not responsible at all. My uninformed, lazy guess is it's somewhere in between. The problem is our country & our developed world is addicted to cheap energy, and without it, our economy will also be crippled.

Energy independence needs to be the ultimate goal: if America holds the patents on cheap energy, competition will keep it relatively cheap and plentiful throughout the world, but if a country unfriendly to us holds the technology, we are at their mercy. We need a technological race for cheap, plentiful, perhaps even green energy on scale with NASA's race for the moon in the 60's, and we need leaders to drop the politics and get out of the way. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

[Christoph]

@MTC

Hey MTC,

your proposals are actively discussed, but i disagree in that being the right thing to do.

1. Smog: while this is a cheap and easy way to reduce radiation from the sun, it also raises a few other problems since, human induced global warmin or not aside, the hum,an induced pollution effects are easy to see and not agreeable neither for humans nor for the rest of nature.

2. Solar Panels at the Lagrange Point, WELL that is far away very expensive and,... what if calculations are wrong, the earth reacts far stronger than predicted and you need to get rid of them to avoid the earth freezing over (Human induced Global Freezing X-D). You'll never get rid of them.

In any case you'll have problem to inverse the effects you induce.

On the other Hand: Building alternatives to fossil-based energy forms is a neccessity anyway. Even if the prediction for the oil reserves has been 40years for the fast few decades one time or another its bound to run out, and if you look at the steep increase in oil price you can feel it coming.

Decreasing the CO2 output might achieve nothing, but if it doesn't work, you only have wasted money. The other solutions cost much money or pollute our environment (i rather prefer clean air) and are not sure to work.

Well that was my tuppence :)
Christoph

[Shalev]

As you said, it's very difficult to determine whether humans can have any impact on Global Warming or not. Nevertheless, I believe the best course of action is to act like we can, for the following reason:

The policies set in place to "prevent" global warming are beneficial to the environment (and public health) on the whole. Yes, maybe reducing emissions and pushing for "Green" products won't actually make a difference regarding the planet's temperature. But what it will do is to help stem the tide of pollutants and toxic chemicals that are poisoning ecosystems, killing off species', and making many places smog-filled cancer holes.

While general (and scientifically verifiable) environmentalism has always been something of a non-issue for many politicians, the global warming debate has the level of political correctness needed to catapult environmental concerns to the front of a campaign ticket. So can we actually affect our planet's temperature? Maybe, maybe not. The point is we're definitely harming our planet in many other concerete ways and the global warming controversy has the ability to catalyze change in those areas.

[Romby]

There is absolutely not the biggest fuck up in history if we start hastily to use alternative energy, even though we happen to be wrong about global warming (that it is due to the lifestyles of humankind).

You see. Oil is a limited resource. That means that one day it will all be gone. I don't know when, but I know it will happen later if we use less of it now. When it is gone. We will have had the benefit of this oil equally much, since we used it all up. We might even have had more use of it if we save some for later, when technology has advanced and we'll be able to get out more energy from it. And when it is gone, it will also not throw us back to 19th centuary lifestyle, cause we already developed other ways to produce energy and it won't be as big of a chock to us.

So there is no way that mankind can loose anything by starting to decrease the use of oil rigt now. We might loose a little of our comfort in life. But we are assured that we give that comfort to our grandchildren anyhow.

So Scott. I hope you can be a man and take back your statement that being wrong in the matter of global warming will make the decissions to prevent it our biggest misstake. Otherwise I'd like to know what in my reply is not holding up.

[John Mc Nelly]

What a response you stirred up. Now, get yourself a banquet hall in some restaurant, and ask all these people to show up once a week and debate it live. Two drink minimum.

[Shalev]

As you said, it's very difficult to determine whether humans can have any impact on Global Warming or not. Nevertheless, I believe the best course of action is to act like we can, for the following reason:

The policies set in place to "prevent" global warming are beneficial to the environment (and public health) on the whole. Yes, maybe reducing emissions and pushing for "Green" products won't actually make a difference regarding the planet's temperature. But what it will do is to help stem the tide of pollutants and toxic chemicals that are poisoning ecosystems, killing off species', and making many places smog-filled cancer holes.

While general (and scientifically verifiable) environmentalism has always been something of a non-issue for many politicians, the global warming debate has the level of political correctness needed to catapult environmental concerns to the front of a campaign ticket. So can we actually affect our planet's temperature? Maybe, maybe not. The point is we're definitely harming our planet in many other concerete ways and the global warming controversy has the ability to catalyze change in those areas.

[Tony]

Peer review is contraproductive when you need a paradigm shift in science - don't rely on it.

[kls]

The whole debate about wheter human-produced CO2 is causing global warming is a nice intellectual exercise, but it's becoming a distraction to the real issue.

The real question is, how aggressively should you, me, our businesses, and our governments be pursuing conservation and renewable energy?

Here are some of the benefits that each of us would see by intelligently investing in a program of conservation and using renewable energy resources on, say, our homes:

1. Reduced utility bills - this is usually the only factor in calculating payback, but stay tuned:

2. Reduced impact on environment - even if you don't believe the whole CO2/global warming connection, how many have seen a smoggy day in LA or NY, or a coal plan spewing smoke, and still believe that burning fossil fuels is good for the environment?

3. A hedge against rising utility costs - there may be a debate about whether we'll use up our oil reserves in 20 years or 40 years, but does anyone really believe utility bills are going down over the long term?

4. Increased self-sufficiency - Some of us have experienced what life if like when the grid goes down for a few days or a few weeks. No traffic lights, no cellular communications, no AC or heat, no hot water, no lights. Trust me, it's a collosal pain in the ass. If we're entering a period or warmer climate and increased hurricane activity, many more of us will have this experience.

5. Energy security - Doing your part to reduce our nations' economic dependency on oil from foreign countries, some of which don't exactly like us. There's some evidence that some of our petro-dollars are even being channelled to terrorists.

6. Assisting the grid - Doing your part to reduce the load on the grid during critical peak periods. like during heat waves, so it is available for more critical things like hospitals and essential pubilc services.

7. Improved property values - investments in conservation and renewable energy add to the property value of a home or business.

So, it's interesting to debate CO2 and global warming, but let's not let it distract us from the big picture.

We all need to be pursuing conservation and renewable energy much more agressively, for a lot of other very important reasons.

[tim]

Scott. Far be it from me to judge but you gotta do your homework on this one. At the moment you're relying on advocates from both sides spewing forth their bullshit/propaganda in order to make a reasoned decision. You gotta do the maths yourself mate. This is something I learned within a few weeks of my first design engineering job. Even engineers have their own axe to grind, pet design flaws (er, I mean techniques); I soon learned to ignore the bullshit advice they gave and to rely on my own calculations, techniques, etc.

FWIW, a few months back (over a weekend) I did as much analysis of the ** raw ** data on this subject as I could find (and stomach, because there was soooo much bullshit coming from both sides) and I came to my own conclusion. I'm not gonna bore you with my conclusion, but I was surprised at the outcome. On reflection, if I'd just sat down and philosphied about it for a few minutes, I'd've come up with the same conclusion...

[Emmabean]

I had the exact opposite response to the "Swindle" video. What a bunch of cheesy amateurs. There have been a number of responses that pretty much discredit the people who made it as "sh*t stirring baboons". (Not my words).

I think it's interesting you stopped your so called research at that video. LAZY. Google it.

But really, it's mox nix as the Germans say. It's getting hotter, that we agree on. The real question is about living sustainably and making good choices for future energy needs. Maybe you'd rather stick your head in the sand and not fuss about it, but personally, I like the idea I can do something.

[Pete]

I have a friend who used to work with NASA as an atmospheric scientist, and keeps himself up to date. He told me global warming is a fact. I believe him.

[Are you one of the people who believes the earth is getting warmer or one of the people who believes the earth is getting warmer? -- Scott]

[MTC]

Given that the earth is warming, do we wish to stop it?
I, as an American, say yes, as America is currently at the top of the economic ladder on earth and any serious change to global circumstances will probably be to our detriment (just a matter of probability).
How can we stop it? Well, the obvious solution (to me, anyway) is to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the earth. I don't believe we can have enough control over global warming by attacking second-order effects to really make a difference, which is essentially the argument of those "against" global warming.
How do we reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the earth? The easy solution is to bring back smog - added particulates in the air cause the weather to be cooler; the extreme version of this is nuclear winter, but we don't have to go that far. Just have everyone stop scrubbing all the soot out of their exhaust systems, and global warming will stop pretty quickly.
Of course, if you don't like smog, perhaps we should try the harder solution - build a sunscreen. There's a point in space between the earth-moon system and the sun with a meta-stable orbit called the L1 point - we could put a bunch of solar panels there to stop some of the sun's energy. How much do we need to stop to reverse global warming? 1%?

[Colin]

--------------------------------------------------------
"If there is a 50/50 chance that us continuing to drive our SUVs and continue consuming oil at the rate we are is going to totally screw us over, should we continue to behave the way we are? What if there is only a 5% chance? Policy has been made on odds far lower than that. How many times have entire product lines been removed simply because some bastard laced a few candy bars with poison?"
-rob kay
---------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get this 50/50 chance idea? Also, they don't remove product lines to help people, they do it so they won't get sued. Therefore, no one will do anything about climbet change untill some people get heat stroke and their families sue a load of big industries. They would have to win thoes cases, too.

[Adam]

I figure I'll just wait a few more years before forming an opinion on this. In the meantime, I'll just continue to smile and nod whenever anyone brings it up, and buy whatever's cheaper.

[Arturo]

1) "Are we sure global warming will cause more bad than good?"

If the sea goes up six meters, that's definitely bad. The process already seems to be underway (all the glaciers are melting, etc.)

2) "Realistically, can we do anything to stop it?"

On the whole, the amount of effort/personal sacrifice needed is quite small so maybe we could try....

What *is* bullshit is the idea that we'll have to spend trillions and give all our personal liberties to do anything.

The changes needed are similar to the ones made when we banned CFCs in aerosols. Everybody complained that prices would go up because the new gases cost more than CFCs but did they really? Nope. What really happened is that the investment in production of the new gases brought the prices down to the same level.

3) "Would the costs of stopping it be more or less than the benefits?"

See (1) and (2) there's simply no excuse for building inefficient houses (wall insulation is cheap!) and guzzling gas just because we like the sound big engines make.

The Government already spend trillions on pointless garbage, wars, etc. All we need to do is divert that into something useful.

25% of the emissions come from cars. A law which made (eg.) all cars over two tons require a diesel engine wouldn't inconvenience anybody in particular but would help massively. It could also start the move away from oil dependence (you could use biodiesel) so when the oil *does* run out you'd be prepared. This sort of measure doesn't cost "trillions", it probably saves money.

Similarly, a law which requires all new house to have a certain level of wall insulation, that all fridges/lightbulbs have a minumum efficiency level, etc. will *save* money in the long term, not cost more, and inconveniences nobody.

Yes, the grinches will go on and on about how they don't like the new lightbulbs or how the old gas engines were "better", but that's what they live for anyway. If they weren't complaining about that they'd be complaining about something else.

[Dotacus]

When I was in 5th grade (about 30 years ago), my teacher told me I had to know metric because it was an absolute certainty that this country (The U.S.) would be totally metric by the time I graduated H.S. I spent the money and bought metric tools as my life went on, but I still measure my abuse of fossil fuels in MPG, and the most used socket in my set is 7/16". If someone would actually tell me the temperature in Celsius, I look at them like a deer in the headlights, but that still hasn't happened. Lesson learned: the so called experts don't know diddly.

I applaud you for saying that neither side can be trusted and admit you don't have the answer. Of course, you piss off both sides when you do so and it's interesting the effect that has on the comments. They seem to end up in two categories: Those you have now alienated, and those who cling to one comment of yours and quote it as proof that you actually got it right.

I refuse to be like those who stocked up rations and ammo to prepare for the coming anarchy of post Y2K. Until someone can prove with no biases that:

1. The earth is warming, (I'll even concede that one)
2. It is caused by man,
3. It's a bad thing,
4. Man can actually do something to stop it,

I can't justify mandating nations across the world to spend gigantic global amounts of money when there are so many other real problems that really could be helped tremendously by that level of investment.

[Biff]

You say people are worried about potential huge fuckups where we pour billions into something that we could have just left alone. Like Iraq?

Anyway, is it worse to spend huge amounts of money reducing our negative impact on the environment when all of us could have driven Hummers, or to be drowned/frozen/whatever because we all drove Hummers? There's potential for screwing up either way.

[Radioactive]

Actually, there's a third common viewpoint:

3. The earth is warming up.

[Marxist]

When shall i start the looting?

[Marxist]

When shall i start looting?

[niCk(MemBeth)]

Homework? I come here to be entertained, and I get homework, or do you call it edutainment.

If some toxic material pollutes a river, the river will suffer, but life will eventually return and things will be cleaned up naturally if the pollution stops.

If the pollution doesn't stop, everything in the river will die, and the river will not be able to support life.

A river is an ecosystem, just like the earth, it is alive. We can even pollute our bodies and they will heal, but continuous unhealthy living will destroy us sooner then if live a healthy lifestyle.

If we keep doing what we are doing, we will destroy our own ecosystem.

In the end it doesn't matter. We will all die sometime, and the sooner death comes, the better for the universe.

I'm an optimist.

[craig]

If you want an unbiased opinion look here. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm This is the closest to a list of observations and there impacts and most non-opiated piece I can find on the subject. It's well-refrenced too. The worst thing would be to do nothing and find the oceans boiling away, that would really screw the pooch. Plus

This entire debate is unbelievable to me. I think the uncertainty is confined to USA maybe NA. If you look outside North America the debate seems to be what to do about the global warming we've caused. Here in the UK govt is worried enough to consider making itself very unpopular by building new nuke power stations. Species are dying out. The television has thrown adverts at us advocating the goverment's concern that we do something.
What the article does not mention is that a lot of that food is farmed by humans, if there weren'tany humans there would be less.

[T44]

I don't have the time to do the science, so it comes down to judgement and gut feel. I think my gut tells me something is looming because it would be too easy to just stop using oil and switch to the cheaper but more greenhouse gas intensive coal. The world has a way of making sure we don't get away with anything without paying a price.

[Francesco Orsenigo]

"1. Are we sure global warming will cause more bad than good?"

The probability of athmospheric phenomena is a gaussian function of energy.
If the average temperature (average energy) rises of just a couple of degrees, the probability of high energy athmospheric phenomena (situated on the tail of the gaussian) increases severalfold.
I don't think people in Philippines or Florida are going to really appreciate this.

Even more, agricolture closely depends on temperature.
If huge areas become barren while others fertile, huge amount of population will be displaced at best, with bad consequences even for the more blessed countries that will have to host millions of refugees.

True that Earth changed often, but at cost of mass extinctions.
True that Greenland was green, but middle ages have been marked by wars and displacements...

Btw, I'd expect rotten leaves relase CO2 that they have previously taken from athmosphere, their balance should be even or negative as may go stored in the ground and eventually becoming fossil fuel!
This can also give an idea of how fast are we burinig fossil fuels agains how fast it is generated (ie CO2 is removed from athmosphere).

Now, it's not my subject, but there's a wide array of possibilities to scientifically estimate the CO2 rates.

"2 Can we do something for it?"
No idea.

Then again, producing and employing energy in better ways is good for the whole world (less pollution, less wars) and should be pursued regardless of global warming.

[Leonel]

Well put, Scott, but...

Try to use some common sense here. The "Global Warming" expression popularized by the media today is reduced to its literal meaning in the eyes of us common folks. Politicians and big corporations took advantage of this and, of course, twisted and manipulated it to meet their own agenda. That's what they do. But if you had taken a step back and scratched your head for a little longer, you would have realized by now the term "Global Warming" summarizes the problems we have been facing for decades with another name: "Pollution". No one could ever say Man isn't responsible for pollution or that we could do nothing about it... but with this new thing, "Global Warming" (it sounds really "cool and modern", doesn't it?), that's another story. I can drive my SUV all I want because there's no "proof" it causes "Global Warming" (never mind smog or acid rain). Hell, I might as well chop up some more of those frikin rain forests because trees produce so much CO2 during the night! That's what my 6th grade Science teacher said!......

Sometimes people call different things by the same name and argue furiously about it (them), and when they realize their mistake, it's already too late.

[Warfreak2]

"Humans are wired to put more weight on avoiding potential huge fuckups than to pursue nebulous benefits to future generations. I see no hope of that changing. So regardless of how sure the scientists are that human activity is causing most of the global warming, it won’t have much impact on policies."

Ignoring global warming and then watching the sea level rise, sounds like a huge fuckup to me! I can't really imagine any politician in that scenario saying "well lads, at least we averted disaster!"

[ansman7]

I don't know about rotting stuff and my degree in oceanography from the College of What's Happening Now is in the mail. What I do know ... and there are several good sources on climatology and this subject and these are here:

Scafetta, Nicola; West, Bruce J. (2006-03-09). "Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming" (PDF). Geophysical Research Letters 33 (5). DOI:10.1029/2005GL025539. L05708.
Stott, Peter A.; et al. (2003-12-03). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?". Journal of Climate 16 (24): 4079–4093. DOI:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C4079:DMUTSC%3E2.0.CO;2.

Now, if you put the big fiery ball overhead into the mix and realize that anywhere from 40% to 80% or more of "climate change" is driven by said big fiery ball, you will come to the conclusions that:
a) "Man" is collection of an egotistical fools;
b) People are idiots;
c) "Adapt or die" works in natural selection and in human society (that whole self organizing theory);
d) This whole debate is obscured by political agendas (your point);
e) Eventually, the sun will go "red giant" and make all of this irrelevant, if the Earth doesn't get hit by a 10km near earth object sometime before that;
f) There will always doom sayers amoungst us whether from the religious right or secular left, whether the noodlings of Nostradamus or the latest in predictive science.

So do you want to ruminate on this great pile of dung some more or is it time to consider just how many hydrogen atoms can be held in a cold sink without virtual leakage?

[jeqp]

"Clearly there is plenty of bullshit on both sides of the debate. I’d like some clarity before I decide whether or not to kill Mubutu to save my beach house."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's great! Another case of American's saying they're fucking the world and everyone in it for the world's good! "Oh no, it's not that I want to drive an SUV, I'm worried about the poor Africans who haven't got enough to eat." Priceless.

[Tobias]

The number of scientists on each side of the argument seems to be of big importance to a great deal of people.
Science is NOT about outvoting other's theories.

"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"
- Albert Einstein on the book "100 Authors Against Einstein"

Bonus: One of the best texts I've ever read on the topic of politicized science/environmental doomsday mongers: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

"I’d like so