I've never seen anybody characterize climate change as "an absolutely man-made phenomenom."

No, it's not "close to impossible to interpret all the data". It's done every day.

We have already measured the results of changes we have made, and seen the good they will do, for example concerning acid rain and pollution in cities.

Actually this is wrong.

In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming"


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

This is outrageously ridiculous.

What exactly is good ecomonically about this again?

And it will be good to have Vladimir Putin and a bunch of crazed militant Ayatollahs have untold wealth? Please NEVER teach social studies EVER!!!

The dust bowl was man made? Wow. Just when i thought you couldn't top Jimmy Carter as a middle eastern savant you come up with this.

I think that air quality is but one issue facing the long term health of the Chinese people.

What does Bush have to do with this? Are you drinking?

Since when do the anti global warming scientists get the headlines? And why would any of the scientists mentioned in just the posted article have no validity? Says who? You have no idea which side is correct, you just think you do.

Please. Keep blaming Bush. Acid rain and pollution in cities had a direct issue that needed to be addressed. Global warming is not a similar issue.

Yes, yes, yes.

I can find so many more the other way.
Its silly to keep up the charade.

THE CONSENSUS is clearly over at least the last 50 years the average temp. of the Earth's atmosphere has increased.

Would you please read my quote again.

The second part is exactly opposite of what Obama's adm. has posited.
The idea is that oil going to levels that are high will FORCE us to use alternative sources (because they are now competitive) which will cause EXACTLY the opposite of what you posted. A painful oil punch will FORCE a switch.

THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE THE ADMISTRATION BELIEVES.
GET OFF THE OIL.

did i yell?

Do you think our reliance on oil importation is a problem?

Polluted water ways.
A beautiful example of what unrestricted industry causes.

It is factual data, not opinions

That site you put up is so politically motivated
it is laughable. Bogus cubed.

How is wind or solar energy going to power our cars? You are confusing the issues.

Solar and wind energy are not good large scale sources because it costs way too much to produce. The main reason being that there are only a few areas of the country that have a climate conducive to those alternates and it will cost a fortune to get the energy created to the other areas.

What is not true?? Show me a fact posted that is not true. It is hardly a mainstream source. Simply saying that it is biased without a single example why is stupid. It is simply not coming up with the hypthesis that you like therefore it is wrong. Again I ask you Mr climate expert, refute something in there if it is wrong.

yeah and they arent going to change either.

1. Solar and wind power produce electricity.
Electricity is a source of energy.
Hybrid cars can be charged by electricity.

Do we need to go further?
And who is confusing the issues?

2. No it does not cost way too much to produce if other sources
become more expensive. It costs way too much now because we
buy mostly from foreign companies and we have no infrastructure
set up like we do for oil.

The energy created will cost to move to begin with. Once a grid is set up
which will be expensive, it will not be.


Nuclear energy is clearly a transitional option. You did not mention Nuclear.

Yes they will.
They will be the example for us.
They are experimenting with their environmental health
right now.

They have already made a few coal powered
plants that emit much less CO2 than ours as well as particulate matter. Very expensive though. But they work better than anything we have. So maybe we can Japan them. Steal their ideas and make them less expensive.

Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.

Are you kidding?


When crap like this starts a SCIENCE explaination, I stop reading.
The funny thing is I am a skeptic also. But not brainwashed.

You honestly think that we can go to electric cars? Not hybrids which are gas cars with little value on highways. Oil is not widely used a an energy source outside of gasoline. I am hardly confusing the issues. You are simply thinking far too simplistically.

Jesus what world do you live in. China as an environmental example of what to do? oh boy.

That is your problem. The FACT is that if you show science that does not walk in lockstep with the global warming police you ARE held to be politically incorrect. You Sniper and Riot are perfect examples of this despite the fact that none of you (myself included) have any area of expertise to draw a differing opinion from. The FACT is that unless you have your head buried in the sand you will see that those who dare to present evidence against the global warming army are cast out. Perhaps if you read the report you may educate yourself about the subject and from the content of your posts that is an area that you could use some help in. I am hardly brainwashed. However I am skeptical and listen to both sides of the issue. The fact that I happen to lean to the other side doesnt make me brainwashed, it may make me right.

Of what NOT TO DO and then how to repair the damage.

Good Christ...

Yes you are a witch and should be burned at the stake.
The experts that we both read... The VAST majority of
the experts have said that the earth is in a warming trend.

I have had THE EXACT argument with a fellow teacher.
His father is in the petrol business. I have looked at so
many graphs levels of atmospheric readings, oh this study
did not take this into account etc... And then you give me
that crap to read?

So you dont believe the Earth is in a warming period, therefore
it is impossible man could not have caused any warming because their is no
warming.

The above is your conclusion based on all the stuff you have read?
ALL the stuff, not just what you want to read.

I am thinking simplistically?
You did not even see the link between solar
and wind and cars?

Of course I am thinking hybrids right now.
Because we as a country have not put near
enough research into small light batteries.

I cannot possible say all electric cars would work right
now because of the above.
I think about what needs to happen in the near future.

This is the really interesting thing about conservatives:
On monetary policy, they have a tendency to look long term.
The debt we are putting ourselves into worry them because
of future concerns... my children will inherit this debt and such.

But... when it comes to energy. The shortsightedness is incredible.
I dont get it. Can you explain this? Hardly any research (relative to other expenditures) into batteries.
Yet a huge amount of innovation on how to exploit a resourse (oil)
that is an end game. All these new ways to drill and methods to
detect oil... its bizarre.

So the Chinese are polluting but the they repair the damage?

The earth is always in a warming or cooling trend. That is not the dispute. The dispute is the effect of man on that warming or cooling. The author of that report comes to the conclusion that based on the data presented that humans account for a minuscule amount of the factors that may cause or accelerate global warming. Perhaps IF you read that you would understand that. The question that i have is that if effect of human activity and the much used "carbon" footprint is virtually nil then why are we spending so much time, money and energy on worrying about it? Science is making new discoveries and refuting old ones all the time. There is so much data with contrary findings that i tend to believe the less radical of the two arguments. That is that global warming is overstated and largely free of human interference.

You are assuming that this big break through in batteries will come soon. Why i dont know. Certainly there will be trillions of dollars to be made for the company that makes the breakthrough so it is hard to believe that there isnt tons of research being done already. I prefer to not make assumptions of things that we cannot know of (like break through in technology) but rather of things that we do know of (like monetary policy) Assuming that the world can just change over to electric cars based upon a discovery that hasnt happened yet is not simplistic. You are right. It is insane.

Ah, I forgot - you prefer personal attack to discussion.

ROFLMAO.

Haven't you noticed that the people who do not "believe" man can affect the worlds climate are those that do not have a strong scientific education or work daily in a scientific field?

When you stop banging your head against a brick wall, it feels pretty good :D

That was an observation and you perceive it as a attack? Your view of Carter on mid east policy specifically Israel and humans creating the dustbowl were brought up in the same post and there now appears to be a 'pattern' of madness to your 'ideas'. That's all Chuck was saying. Now I can't wait to hear the relationship between tilled soil and draught? Please do tell!!

Yes, Dell, when you respond to a post, but do not talk about the points raised by the other poster about the subject at hand, but rather you comment only about the poster, that is a personal attack.

It's a common response on internet lists for people that don't have any salient argument available regarding the subject matter at hand.

That some apparently repeatedly have difficulty following or understanding the points other posters may make doesn't automatically mean the posters are at fault ;)

Science isn't "... and refuting old ones all the time". Very rarely have "old discoveries" been completely refuted. Science, 99% of the time, builds and expands, rather than tears down. That's the type of assumption some might make when their science exposure is pretty much only from the evening news (which loves to try and make things black and white and extremely simplistic)

A different kind of author might draw a much different conclusion. Try this: it's a peer-reviewed well-respected consensus of the science to date. Sorta cinched the global warming-man's involvement thing. Nothing has been refuted since, only expanded upon by further information. You might have to pay to read it on-line.

Nature 408, 184-187 (9 November 2000) | doi:10.1038/35041539; Received 6 January 2000; Accepted 26 September 2000


Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model
Peter M. Cox1, Richard A. Betts1, Chris D. Jones1, Steven A. Spall1 & Ian J. Totterdell2

Hadley Centre, The Met Office, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SY, UK
Southampton Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK
Correspondence to: Peter M. Cox1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.M.C. (e-mail: Email: pmcox@meto.gov.uk).

The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate1. About half of the current emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land ecosystems2, but this absorption is sensitive to climate3, 4 as well as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations5, creating a feedback loop. General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change6. Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional carbon–climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks could significantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-first century. We find that under a 'business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr-1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2, resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon-cycle feedback.

Personal attack? It is just repeating what you said.

I asked you repeatedly for whether you agree or disagree w/ Carter believing Israel's treatment of Palestinians is worse than Rwanda (missed all those Palestinians running around with burning tires hanging from them) and you went all over the place AVOIDING the subject at hand before finally saying you don't agree w/all his policies despite his great understanding of all things mid east. Then you say the dust bowl was the fault of man. I asked how did man create the draught and you go completely off subject attacking Chuck and presumably me for not having a 'salient' argument. Now I ask again please tell me how man created the draught and please keep on subject?

Yes, which had nothing at all to do with the previous discussion at hand, least of all the context of which I brought up Carter's name. You went off on a weird tangent. I told you if you wanted to discuss his middle east policies and successes or failures, start your own thread and enjoy.

LOL - I never said man created a drought :D Man's changing the environmental ecology by tilling thousands of acres of soil was indeed the sole cause of subsequently losing all that soil when that man-altered environment was subjected to normal environmental variances.

Why is this any more valid than the studies that refute the idea that man has very little to do with this?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-EDF6D8150789

Because it has withstood nearly 10 years of rigourous scientific peer-review as to the validity of it's conclusions, while opinions (there is very little valid scientific findings) that refute that hypothesis have not and remain a markedly minority opinion.

YOU! brought up Carter as having a deep understanding of the mid east and when I pointed out some of his stated understanding that's going on a weird tangent?

and w/o a severe draught and global warming that happened during the early 30's the soil would have remained where it was. I understand it led to many innovations in farming specifically rotating crops and going away from deep soil tilling but it's like arguing the chicken or the egg in so far as man being the sole cause... IMO

The soil on the great plains would have remained where it was even during severe drought and severe wind if the normal prairie was still covering it. But the prairie wasn't there to hold the soil. Why? Because man removed it so he could plant crops.

My point is that man can indeed influence and change the environment, sometimes forever. Why does the Colorado River no longer flow to the Pacific Ocean? Why are there no passenger pigeons?