I'm just curious to see how far off each others views we really are.

Hey OEXCHAOS, I would love to post charts and photos in my responses to some of these goofballs to make it clear that global warming is real, but I am an oldtimer (age 58) and not computer savvy, and simple copying and pasting from my computer (right click-left click) does not appear to work on this site. Can you let us computer dufus types know how to post charts and photos. I am a simple country boy from pre-computer days, (Bill Gates could be my son), but I would like to educate your readers (not sure why since they don't appear to understand science, but I should at least make a futile attempt). Thank you.

By the way I appreciate all your efforts to promote discussion and dialogue on all these issues.

Mark, looking at your possible answers, it dawned on me that some equate doing something about global warming to doing something to protect the environment.

The two are different in my opinion.
I consider protecting the environment a duty and obligation.
I consider the "global warming" push to be a political movement with a variety of underlying ulterior motives.

I totally agree with these two statements. When it is realized that sunspots, ocean currents, and PARKING lots effect warming more than anything else, mans effect can be reduced. There is almost NOTHING we can do about the other two.
mss

My position expressed in great detail on the board is not there either, and since I believe a large number of us who actually have a science training are of my view, I'll add it here:

What is your position on "Global Warming"?
It exists, the causes are unprovable(**see note) and neither side can or will prove it before the point
of 'no return' i.e. past the point of unknowable consequences if its man made, since the science is unprovable, no one can correctly anticipate the consequences ( logic dictates you would need provable science to accurately predict the consequences).

**Proof - there is infact no way to 'prove' the science of global warming in the way non-scientists want i.e. like gravity, the nature of the phenomena does not allow it, its a red herring, so there will always be disagreement, just like many scientifists question most theories. The only 'provable' theories are one's the allow for simplist reproducible experiments like gravity - impossible in this case, hence the entire debate about proof is a game - ergo, read my avatar.

What should we do about "Global Warming"? Perform the normal risk/cost calculation curve as we do for all forms of natural disaster threat in insurance industry. The difficult decision is then how much risk to take, just as with your own house insurance. You can pay more and cover more or less, its all about risk control when there are so many unknowns.

---------------------

So i'm more interested in who will decide how much risk(cost) to take. I gave a simpler example of this problem in another post, and not one person answered it, its diffcult. If a meteor was potentially going to hit us, but its 50/50 if it hits or misses ( unknown, just like mans influence on climate), how much do we potentially waste trying to avoid a hit that might not happen? who decides and how?

Our political system just isn't good with probabilistic events....we've only just reached a point in our 'intellectual evolution' that we care about the future, so this is really a big step forward society is having this debate at all, and there will be more to come - should we allow genetic engineering given the unknown results, nano tech etc etc... Out of friction like this comes progress....it will be a long road, but a better decision making structure for these events will emerge.....ok, I admit my 'theory' on progress assumes we don't destroy ourselves whilst figuring it out.


Mark.

"So many unknows." Therein lies the problem.
There is disagreement as to whether there is currently warming or cooling, as these seem cyclical.
There is disagreement among those who believe in global warming as to whether it is human caused or natural.
There is disagreement as to what to do about it if it human caused.
There are unknown consequences to any human action to "reduce" greenhouse gasses etc.
There is even disagreement whether or not global warming might in fact be a positive since societies seem to prosper in warmer cycles and suffer in cooler cycles (think dark ages and plague).

A couple of points.

Some say that the earth is warming, some say that temperatures have been flat at various times during the 20th century, including the past decade, and some say that cooling has already started. About the only thing that all agree on is that the earth has warmed from the low temperatures of the little ice age in the 1800s (yes when one leaves an ice age the temperature rises!).

Very few say that human activities and the infamous greenhouse effect do not produce warming. The question is how much. Those that rely on unverified models (e.g., all used by IPCC) which have known serious deficiencies say that it is a big factor. Those that concentrate on analyzing grubby temperature measurements say very little. The number that say human activity is a minor factor is growing. I saw an article the other day that discussed a survey of recently published papers and found that roughly half came down on the human activity side and the other on the natural camp. Of course, as I assume we all agree, consensus means nada in the scientific community or in the often quoted words of Reiter, Pasteur Institute, "consensus is the stuff of politics, not science."

In my view, the danger of turning the issue into a political football is that it results in actions that may or may not be consistent with the science which is not fully understood and to that extent would be quite detrimental (look at the effect of Kyoto and who has benefited - think about why Russia agreed to the agreement against the advise of its scientists). Taking a scientific issue and having politicians decide whether or not the earth has a "fever" is nonsensical. In a very real sense, the issue can be addressed politically in a rational way (which by definition is impossible in D.C.) by looking instead at the simple fact that fossil fuels are going to run out sooner or later, if one believes that the earth has a finite volume. A reasonable function for government in that situation is to provide the leadership (is that word in beltway dictionaries?) that results in legislation and regulations which move us (and the world) toward lower usage (e.g., increased efficiency of cars, etc. which the engineering societies advised Congress to do in the 1970s) and increased R&D for the big stuff like fusion. Hitting the panic button and jumping on uneconomical solutions (the direction D.C. is moving) is crazy and only slows down the day when we will have what we need for a long term energy supply. Of course, this smacks to much of being part of a national energy strategy which is not something that D.C. will ever consider until the first city goes cold and dark (again leadership is not the stuff of D.C. types).

In the meantime, I'm gonna move south away from the coast in order to stay away from the rising sea and creeping glaciers.

You know, to nibble at mss's point. Our cities and suburbs have created HUGE thermal masses. I don't know the objective measurements, but here in my neck of the woods, I can observe the micro climate created by just parking lots.

I'm not talking about a little bit, either. I'm talking about several degrees on a sunny spring day. Enough to allow gardens to the south east of larger lots to be planted much earlier and to allow wintering over of plants that shouldn't be able to make it through a winter in this latitude.

Yet every day, they bulldoze hundreds of acres and then black top them. I have no idea why we don't have an urban/suburban policy of zoning for planting one deciduous tree for every 1/4 acre of parking surface. I mean, it's CHEAP and it has all manner of real, benefits for folks right now. It's pretty, it's cooling for the neighborhood in summer, and it makes your car bearable to get into in August. Plus, each tree is a carbon sink and exudes O2.

The next step, is probably rooftop gardens, which will get more mileage as the re-urbanization of America picks up steam. BTW, this move is going to really cut down on fuel demand, too.

Mark

As i've pointed out in many posts, Unknowns are no excuse not to make decisions - its equally unknown whether lightning will strike your house, or a freak flood will occur, but you still buy insurance against it.
In the case of lightning odds are in the 1:100,000's+
- the odds of global warming being man made and negative are considerably less than 1:100,000 !

What is the one definite KNOWN is the earth and other planets have experienced 'runaway global warming', such as during the dinosaur era. So we DO KNOW what the potential maximum risk are don't we? and as much as I like hot climates, I find it hard to claim flooding 2/3rd of the earth as that did would be a 'positive'.

A sliding scale from minor to this maximum damage is 'the curve' of risk/cost I referred to, all that left is for 'us' to choose how much insurance premium we want to pay.

Mark

Mark, I vote for immediately doing the FREE things and the nearly free things to generate a bit of insurance. Individuals need to be aware of their choices and their impact...and not just by folks with a less than genuine agenda.

Mark

Arch Crawford and I had a discussion about this a year ago, when the global warming scam video was going around on the net.

Here is an article published on Arch's website that you might find interesting...

http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/Fairbr...aryDynamics.htm

Your claim that 'one definite KNOWN' is 'runaway global warming' is simply an assumption that is not supported by an increasing number of scientists (at least 50% by the latest survey of the literature). In addition, there are a number of folks, including heavy hitters like Fairbridge, who point to decreased solar activity that started around 1996, resulting in cooling which should begin to be felt within a few more years as an extension of the flat period since that time. Given that possibility we should extend your argument and take out insurance for being both burnt to a crisp or trapped in an iceberg. Unfortunately, we cannot afford the double premium. Even a single premium is tough to handle, as evidenced by the pain we suffered in the seventies when we took out insurance because the consensus was that global cooling had hit.

True believers walk everywhere and don't use any electricity or toilet paper.

Then the big diesel truck comes buy to pick up their box of empty plastic water bottles.

You failed to either read what I said, or perhaps lack the scientific training to comprehend its meaning?

I'll try to simply it further:

My 'claim', is not my claim, it is the known chemical science of green house effect. It is what keeps this planet warm.

Secondly, I said the runway effect is the worst case scenario. A Runaway green house effect is an exteme condition that can occur, for example on the planet Venus.

Thirdly, I suggested use of insurance risk/cost curve - using a best case to worst case risk/cost curve.


As to your claim:
"Given that possibility we should extend your argument and take out insurance for being both burnt to a crisp or trapped in an iceberg.Unfortunately, we cannot afford the double premium. Even a single premium is tough to handle, as evidenced by the pain we suffered in the seventies when we took out insurance because the consensus was that global cooling had hit."

What pain did we suffer and insurance did we take out against global cooling in the 1970's? none that I can remember or find?
Certainly I do know that the economic problems of the 1970 had mostly to do with well understood economic reasons, as any student of economic history should be aware - post vietnam, oil crisis, inflation part of K-cycle etc


As to how much premium we can afford, that is the question. I did not suggest we take out MAXIMUM insurance, I said 'we' in collective democracy will have to decide how to take out. You have the same decision with car or house insurance.

Mark(OEX) abvove suggested a good starting pointon this insurance curve i.e. minimal or free action...and yes Mark(OEX) I agree with that. I would suggest we start with minimal cost insurance, allowing us more time to determine probabilities of outcomes. Because to make that decision, what we need from scientist is not 'i'm right, your wrong' - as per current debate, but PROBABILITIES of OUTCOMES -
that is infact how real scientists work. But, powerful groups with vested interests have used this issue to divide the public into waring faction...but I don't want to get off topic on that.


I've clearly stated, the science on BOTH sides cannot be proved currently. If i'm wrong on that, explain it to me, how would anyone actually prove the science of either the skeptics or pro-global warming?
Using historical data - nope, data is disputed by many scientists
Using Models - nope, models are disputed by many scientists

The science of the skeptic scientists is just as disputable as the pro, it suffers the same problems.
I've explained all this previously in posts, at great length I don't have the time/energy/motivation to repeat it here, but the bottom line is


- most people 'debating' this isssue don't have adequate science education to understand the issues, and thus default to trusting so called experts, something like the following:

Fred the Skeptic: I don't believe in global warming..its a loony liberal lefting conspiracy, I'm going to look for article's on google and scientists who 'prove' it doesn't exist.
Joe the GLobal warmist: I know global warming is real and the right wing nut jobs conspire to hide the truth, I'm going to look for article's on google and scientists who 'prove' it exist.

Fred and Joe then find a media or internet pages or message board to endless talk across each other, posting articles to support their view, getting wound up etc ( just as the matrix wants).



More important even than not understanding the issues, is most people don't understand SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and are misled into believing that science is about right/wrong answers, it isn't, its about probabilities and evolving understanding. Geez, even the most foolproof right/wrong of Newtons law of Gravity turns out to be 'wrong' due to Einsteins Special Relativity..

*** nothing is sacred in science, everything is challengable, there is NEVER 100% CONSENSUS and NEVER SHOULD BE IF SCIENTISTS ARE BEING SCIENTISTS ***

Note. but unfortunately, most 'scientists' are not 'being scientists', they are pimps for whoever pays for their research.


To be clear, the point of my post was to explain MY position in response to the poll, not to argue with Fred's or Joe's because I've explained why I believe that's pointless.


Mark

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.

* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.



World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/1...o_schmyoto.html

"You ...perhaps lack the scientific training to comprehend its meaning?"
.
.
.
"Converting science into an authoritarian belief system is, however, dangerous not just to those whom it demonizes but, eventually, to the health of the institution itself."
The Dangerous Rise of Carbon Fundamentalism
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=36591

I said EITHER you read it or you didn't understand it - OK must be that then. Having read your red inked, insult laden, incoherant reply, I still don't believe you understand it, but I have tried to fathom some sense into your reply, though in doing so i'm rapidly losing the will to live.

and, in addition, I would be glad to match you degree for degree so find another rock to throw.

I threw no rock, that you perceived one I can only summize you are a very thin skinned, overly sensitive and reactive individual.
As for 'matching degrees', shall we stand 30 paces and draw revolvers?
Boy, I hope you have more self control in the 'real world'.

Infact, I merely posted my view in response to the poll, and then YOU chose to 'throw rocks' as you'd see it at my view.

I'll try to simply it further:
My 'claim', is not my claim, it is the known chemical science of green house effect. It is what keeps this planet warm.

Wrong. Greenhouse gases, as has been know for ages, do in fact contribute to warming of the atmosphere but they are a minor factor in affecting the earth's temperature which has been warming for hundreds of years as is normally the case when one comes out of an ice age.

Your statement makes me right.

You first claimed green house warming didn't exist, then when I point out that it certainly does exist, you turn 180degree's and agree with me ( yet claim I am 'wrong' ) , but change your claim to -
-but they are a minor factor in affecting the earth's temperature

Incidently, that's an illogical level of certainty for someone who claims such scientific certainty on climate matters is impossible.


Secondly, I said the runway effect is the worst case scenario. A Runaway green house effect is an exteme condition that can occur, for example on the planet Venus.

Extreme is the understatement of the day. A good example of how a little bit of knowledge can lead to a fair amont of irrationality.

Yes, worst case scenario = extreme, clearly you agree then that runaway green house effect COULD occur, which was my point.


Thirdly, I suggested use of insurance risk/cost curve - using a best case to worst case risk/cost curve.
As to your claim:
"Given that possibility we should extend your argument and take out insurance for being both burnt to a crisp or trapped in an iceberg.Unfortunately, we cannot afford the double premium. Even a single premium is tough to handle, as evidenced by the pain we suffered in the seventies when we took out insurance because the consensus was that global cooling had hit."

What pain did we suffer and insurance did we take out against global cooling in the 1970's? none that I can remember or find?
Certainly I do know that the economic problems of the 1970 had mostly to do with well understood economic reasons, as any student of economic history should be aware - post vietnam, oil crisis, inflation part of K-cycle etc

A bit of sarcasim that flew over your head.



Indeed, sadly I can't tell when your being sarcastic or serious I must admit.

No we did not suffer any pain or take out any insurance (however that is defined) in spite of cries to the contrary from the global coolers who today have morphed into global warmers.

Oh, OK, so when you said:
" Even a single premium is tough to handle, as evidenced by the pain we suffered in the seventies when we took out insurance because the consensus was that global cooling had hit."

..you weren't 'making things up', but being 'sarcastic', that must be a clever use of the word i'm not familiar with...um, and THAT would be sarcasm as I understand its meaning.

The simple fact is that the earth has been warming since the last ice age - that is what happens when one leaves an ice age. As a scientist you should know that the issue is not global warming but rather climate change.

No, the issue is as I and most people are discussing global warming, and specifically, IS MAN causing global warming via green house effect. That you don't believe that is the issue were discussing here explains alot., hence Mark(OEX) poll question.

The climate always changes, always has and always will. In fact, as you know, an increasing number of scientists now see signs of cooling. Any clue how cool? Time to get ready for global cooling panic again. In any case, the premium for going down the adaption road is far smaller than that of the "stop global warming" or "stop global cooling" routes and yet handles climate change - both cooling and warming.

The issue is posible MAN made effect and taking out insurance against them.
If these scientists who see 'global cooling' can produce peer reviewed scientific papers of how MAN is CAUSING it, can quantify the probability of it, and its effect, then it would be something to look at for sure.

Please show me some links to such papers for review, and I will gladly read them.
If the science is sound, we can then add the 'cooling worry' to the worry list along with the risk of man made global warming.



As to how much premium we can afford, that is the question. I did not suggest we take out MAXIMUM insurance, I said 'we' in collective democracy will have to decide how to take out. You have the same decision with car or house insurance.

The "insurance" that is needed is not what global warmers bloviate about but rather a sensibile strategy for adapting. We ain't gonna change the climate so learn to love it.


Obviously false. We CAN change the climate IF it turns out man is having a causal effect on it, that is the ENTIRE ISSUE.

We also won't learn to love it, if as per EVERY CANONICAL FEEDBACK SYSTEM in the real world, the warming system enters a feedback loop aka runaway warming or tipping points.

The study of control systems reveals that ALL natural systems exhibit steady state( a long term trend) and transient signals(fluctuating cycles than feed into the trend, and eventually change it). The tricky point is where the transient cycles 'tip' the longer term trend. In natural system, this is NEVER SMOOTH, it occurs with wild volalitility.

IF Man is causing warming ( assign whatever probability to that risk you want), THEN the science of control systems tells us that there is a finite risk of high volatility causing runway effect, and likely these would be a series of 'tipping points'.

You the contradict yourself below. You say insurance is unecessary, but now you say:
Such "insurance" should incorporate the simple fact that most believe that earth is a finite volume and, therefore, stuff like hydrocarbons are not finite. Such strategies would also partially satisfy the global warmers but be one step ahead when global cooling hits.

OK great, please explain in practical term what kind of action this would mean.

The importance of taking the "insurance" question out of the global warmer's argument to change or control the climate is that starting from that perspective one ends up at the wrong political outcome - for starters we don't need another Kyoto fiasco as an endpoint.

Oh, now your against insurance again...I think...maybe your being 'sarcastic' ?
Yes, Kyoto is a fiasco, we agree on that.


I've clearly stated, the science on BOTH sides cannot be proved currently. If i'm wrong on that, explain it to me, how would anyone actually prove the science of either the skeptics or pro-global warming?
Using historical data - nope, data is disputed by many scientists
Using Models - nope, models are disputed by many scientists

Right. There are no verifiable models and therefore no way to estimate the effect of human activity on climate. Given that why all the unjustified words calling for change?

OK, i've explained why twice and I'm repeating myself again, but lets try again. My words are about assessing the risk so we can asess insurance that man IS causing global warming through green house gases.
I don't know if we are, but my words are about:
1. Asking for a number, like OK, there's a 1 in 100 chance man is causing global warming through green house gases.
Who would I ask> - I'd ask ALL SCIENTIST on ALL SIDES of the issue, that can produce a peer reviewable paper ( no consensus required, just produce a paper). ..yep let everyone have a say.

2. I'd let the insurance experts in risk assessment take all those different probabilities, and come up with a risk curve, like they do for all natural distaters.

I don't know how to make my words any clearer than this, you just don't seem to grasp the idea of probabilities and risk, if you trade, I find that bizaar, perhaps some numbers will help?

I'll make a total guess(not really, most times this is true), we'd get something like this:
. A normally distributed curve of scientisits assessments
- with the 'mean' assessment of the order of 1 in 10 ( man made global warming)
- with outliers at 2S.D. of close to zero risk, and 2 S.D. for those near near certainty of mans causal effect.
- We'd also get a similar distribution of potential damage assessment.

What would 'we' do with that, I said that is the only question to me. If we claim to be democratic, we'd try to explain these risk/insurance cost curves to the voting public, and vote on 'how much risk/insurance we want to take'.


The science of the skeptic scientists is just as disputable as the pro, it suffers the same problems.
I've explained all this previously in posts, at great length I don't have the time/energy/motivation to repeat it here, but the bottom line is

Previous posts have for most provided convincing evidence that the global warming claims are way overblown. To be sure, most of the articles are of an overview nature as full blown scientific studies would not be read by many but they are there and one can dig deeper if interested. Of course, one does not see very well when wearing blinders.

You clearly haven't been reading MY posts. My posts having been making the same points as above.
But you are right about blinders, and often people aren't aware they're wearing them - which relates to my avatar.


- most people 'debating' this isssue don't have adequate science education to understand the issues, and thus default to trusting so called experts, something like the following:

This is a typical veiled argument from those that are over their head and at the same time attempt to elevate themselves.

In my case its a logical axiom. You cannot discuss the validatity of 2+2=4, if you do not understand the rules of addition.

If you want to believe that most people understand the scientific disciplines necessary to understand these issues that's your perogative Colion, I admire your faith in your fellow man. But my opinion( that's all it is like yours) is based on my experience, is that MOST people do not have a firm grasp of for example: probability theory, control systems, choas, scientific method etc


More important even than not understanding the issues, is most people don't understand SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and are misled into believing that science is about right/wrong answers, it isn't, its about probabilities and evolving understanding. Geez, even the most foolproof right/wrong of Newtons law of Gravity turns out to be 'wrong' due to Einsteins Special Relativity..

*** nothing is sacred in science, everything is challengable, there is NEVER 100% CONSENSUS and NEVER SHOULD BE IF SCIENTISTS ARE BEING SCIENTISTS ***

At last, we agree to a large extent on something. This would be a good place to end except there is somemore drivel below.


Oh did we...quick, I will change my view. ...just kidding.

Yes, lets look at more of my 'drivel'...I bet your being sarcastic again aren't you?..surely you won't just hurl inane insults.

Note. but unfortunately, most 'scientists' are not 'being scientists', they are pimps for whoever pays for their research.

I assume that you agree that this applies to both global warmers and skeptics.

Yes I do, that's why I said it over and over.

In either case, however, it is a pitiful argument.

Oh no, is it? darn I thought I was doing so well....but it turns out I was just pitiful. ..lucky you came along to put me right eh.

One either can or cannot knock the research.

Well, I can't disagree with you there Einstein.

No matter where the funding comes from the research either stands on its own or it does not.

Your on a role, impecable logic...but there again, don't listen to me I'm pitiful.

To attack people because of their funding (most skeptics are not funded to any great extent, if at all, by organizations that the global warmers hate) is just throwing up a smokescreen because no counter argument exists.

Darn, you lost me again. My point was that scientists often lose objectively because their paymasters lean on them - think pharama' and their drug tests, this is pretty widely known, but if its news to you, sorry to break the news that scientists are not always pure snowy white moral giants.

</SPAN>All the best Colion, and I hope i've made myself clearer.
Mark.

(Sorry about that - hit the wrong button)

OK, Mark. I'll take your hand and lead you into the promised land because otherwise you will wander in the wilderness of ignorance forever.

1.

(Again sorry about that. I think the TAB key is sending the message before it is done and after that I can't get back in to edit or delete. Last try)

OK, Mark. I'll take your hand and lead you into the promised land because otherwise you will wander in the wilderness of ignorance forever.

1. You are a master of the "in your face" style which does not impress many except those across the pond where is common practice. In any case, don't kid yourself. Nobody is bashful around here. If someone reads something and does not understand it clarification is requested. So, to be perfectly clear your rantings were read and understood. You have used the not read and understood approach before and it is getting a bit stale. Claims that those who do not understand (read agree) being due to a lack of scientific knowledge is typical of positions taken by politicians and others not schooled in the subject. A veiled argument at best. Not very impressive.

2. Do you have a problem understanding what was written? Where did I claim that greenhouse warming did not exist? In fact, what was said was that "Very few say that human activities and the infamous greenhouse effect do not produce warming." In your convoluted world does this translate to greenhouse gases do not produce warming? Yes, you are wrong to claim that the greenhouse effect keeps the planet warm because this implies that it is a major factor which it is not.

3. Yes, greenhouse gases and specifically those due to human activities are only a minor factor affecting climate change. Although you try to dodge the bullet this statement is consistent with the previous. One can only arrive at your upside down conclusion by an illogical thought process.

4. The widely accepted negative feedback in the climate system (plug that into your control theory) reduces a run-away greenhouse effect to essential zero. Could it occur? One never says never. However, only an activist would grasp at such a straw in pushing their position. It would be very unwise to consider that scenario when considering what to do.

5. You want to take out insurance (whatever that is) to ensure that we don't either burn up or freeze. All of this is based on the belief that human activities significantly affect climate. At best, giving your position the benefit of the doubt, there is no convincing evidence that human activity is or is not causing climate change. In fact, a recent count of the number of published papers for and against indicates that it is a draw. However, when one looks at the trajectory of believers/non-believers it is clear that the pendulum is shifting toward non-believers. Absent a convincing do-or-die argument, any insurance would have to have a neutral to positive effect on the economy and life style in order to be politically acceptable. On the other hand, following an adaptation strategy would I believe result in positive effects with a smaller premium. To be sure, you might call adaptation insurance, but to me the implications are quite different because insurance in your case is directed toward the impossible task of modifying climate and the other to the feasible reality of adapting to climate change as man has done in the past and will do so in the future.

6. As for cooling, you are obviously unaware of the scientific literature regarding the natural causes for climate change. This research has been around for many decades and studies continue at an increasing rate. Natural causes are at the root and are largely responsible for coming out of the ice age and possible going back into a cooling period which some argue has already started. In fact, one of the convincing arguments about the small effect of human activity on climate change comes from studies of what happened between cool and warm periods.

More can be said but it is not worthwhile taking the time to do so. I'm not in the conversion business so you can rant away but I'm outta this thread.

"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

I find no point in arguing religion or global warming (one in the same).

Just offer facts.

It was a cold year.

Gjive the religion a name: environmentalism. (man-bad, nature-good)

FYI - this week i'll have to focus on the market during the week, i'll check back next weekend, so that gives people a week to give their factual, concise answer to the meteor problem I gave. I look forward to reading them.

Mark.

NASA chief: global warming treated "almost as a religious issue"

Last May NASA Administrator Michael Griffin injected himself into the global warming debate by questioning whether addressing the problem required all that much urgency.

I recently had a chance to speak with Griffin, (for a full Q&A, see here) and I asked him what he thought about the incredible response those comments generated.
196738main1_mg_2266.bmp
Griffin

Were you surprised by the widespread, heated response to your global warming comments last May?

I was. I've admitted flat out that I made a mistake there on a couple of levels. I thought I was talking about technical topic, which I find actually very interesting from a technical point of view. I didn't realize it had approached the status where you can't express any sort of a contrary opinion or a comment without it being treated almost as a religious issue. So that's one mistake. The second one was, of course, that it actually doesn't have anything to do with what we do at NASA. Our job is to gather the data, we don't make policy about what you do with the data. By making comments along those lines all I really did is embroil my agency in a controversy in fight that we don't have a dog. So yeah, it was a mistake.

Have you talked to James Hansen since then?

No, Jim has never seen fit to contact me. Jim's done some great work. I have no criticism of it. You could make an argument that a critical mass of climate modeling, of raising climate modeling to become a centerpiece of the Earth Science program, is due to Jim's efforts over the last 30 years. Without that you don't know how to interpret the data which we bring back. What we know is that the Earth's temperature has increased by 0.8 degrees Centigrade, plus or minus, in 100 years. And we have pretty good confidence that a good fraction of that is anthropogenic. But exactly how much, and exactly what human activities are doing that, much less certainty. And that's with 100 years of work. So you have to construct theoretical models, and run them on a computer, and anchor those models with data. And the data has got to cover a long period of time with a broad spectrum of observations because they're all interrelated. So the models have to be complex, the data has to be both comprehensive in type and it has to be extensive in time in order to get any real information out of it.

Critics of the models would say they don't meet a number of the criteria you just laid out. Do you think that's right?

I think it is, but where do they expect you to start? I mean, ever heard of walk before you run? You're not going to go from no models to perfect models in one step. It's not going to happen.


http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/200...chief_glob.html

Montreal set to break all-time snow record...

Earth cooling since 1998! BLAPSHEMY!

LINK

Climate Facts
Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could be considerable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.

The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".

Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.

It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.

THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.

The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".

What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.

Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

I was at an Endowment dinner last week at one of the Universities and was chatting with a well known science professor. I jokingly asked him if the world was flat, a new book out about that, his response was getting flatter each year. I asked why?? GLOBLE warming of course he answered rather curtly.
I smiled politely and asked if he really thought the earth was warming to the dangerous state and would be flooded soon. He became rather boisterous in suggesting that yes it was and all due to "big corporations" and their greedy management team. He went on to site many reasons we were doomed because of mans carelessness.

I then asked the deal breaker: Sir, sense you are teaching science to current collage students, should you give both sides of the story on warming? His answer, THERE IS ONLY ONE SIDE!

And then I said: How much Government grant money did you receive??

He stomped out of the room.

Michigan has snowiest winter since records began in 1880...

[b]Milwaukee hits 95.4 inches... [/b]

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so

Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers



More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

"My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers [38 at last count], I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

"Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction." ...

"Most of the deniers I have written about have suffered for their scientific findings -- some have been forced from their positions, others lost funding grants or been publicly criticized. In writing about these ... , I have inadvertently added to their anguish. None among [them] welcome the term "denier" -- a hateful word that I used ironically, but perhaps illadvisedly. ... The word "denier," of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention. In other disciplines, dissent is part of what's called 'the scientific method' and lauded."


http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Sci...3554&sr=8-2

There are individual scientists, many paid by the fossil fuel industry, who try to promote confusion regarding climate change, similar to what tobacco industry "scientists" were doing to delay public understanding regarding health hazards of smoking, but there is great consensus among climate scientists and scientific organizations that:

*the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;

*the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;

*the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;

*if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and

*a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1, the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

Only by understanding science and accepting the reality of the situation in a non-political, non-partisan way will we be able to take actions that promote a sound economic future for our grandchildren.

The problem with your list is --how many people in each one received money/grants for study - and how many individuals ACTUALLY read the review?
Politics and money effects too many opinions in organizations.
mss

The consensus argument has been debunked numerous times in this forum and in the literature. The key question is since when is science based on consensus? It is not! Too many naively equate consensus with scientific truths which are not established by consensus but by one (or more) person being right. Attempts to do so have consistently failed from Galileo to more recent times when NAS pushed the global cooling panic button in 1975 and got the consensus bandwagon rolling at that time. Clearly, we know from numerous examples that consensus can be both right and wrong, reflecting all to often groupthink rather than science. If, for example, the world had followed the consensus that opposed the views of Galileo, Copernicus, and Columbus, we would all be members of the Flat Earth Society happily content that the universe is revolving around us. To pull up one of my favorite quotes, Professor Reiter, Institut Pasteur, noted that "consensus is the stuff of politics, not science."

If one, however, is impressed with organizations that support a particular view then it should be of interest to know how that position was reached. Was it a political decision or were the members polled? To what extent are the organizations and its members controlled directly or indirectly by governments and industries that would benefit from acceptance of the global warming myth? If polled, what percentage of the members support the official position of the organization? Take, for example, the IPCC Executive Summary (a clear example of a supposedly scientific body that is strongly influenced by political factors and bodies) which was signed by only 51 people (a small fraction of the total involved) and was generated by a process involving both members of the scientific committees and appointed government representatives. The outrage against some of the comments in the report is demonstrated by the number of scientists involved with the background studies who have openly objected (and in some cases disassociated themselves) to what was published.

We know from the published list of over 400 scientists by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that many highly respected scientists oppose the notion that human forcings are a major factor in climate change and where there is smoke there is fire pointing to many hundreds/thousands more (hardly a small minority of the climate change scientific community which brings into question the conclusion that consensus exists). We also know that many of these individuals are members of societies with official positions that are contrary to the view that climate change is largely due to natural causes. We also know from a recent study that over the past three years the proceedings of these organizations contain about an equal number of papers on both sides of the issue - that is hardly consensus and arguably a more valid measure of where the scientific community stands than a list of organizations. We also know that a number of these organizations and their members are impacted to one degree or another by both political and monetary pressures from governmental bodies and lobbyists (primarily companies and environmental groups).

Against a background of increasing evidence in the literature (and posted in this forum) that climate change reflects in the main natural causes, contrary to a number of IPCC claims, the bottom line is that there is no evidence of consensus and even if there were it does not mean anything.

Only if you disregard the new data provided by NASA satellites and 5,000 ocean temperature stations, which contradicts that "Consensus". LINK

The models need to be overhauled to include new discoveries:
the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

(Full text on previous page of this thread)






Hmmm.
Now I'm wondering whom MSS is really working for?
Which Fat Cat is paying him off?

"Big Catnip" probably!

Along these lines is another inconvenient truth. Below is seasonally adjusted CO2 measured at Scripps Mauna Loa (green) and MSUs lower troposphere (blue) and Hadley land/ocean variance. Statistically there is no correlation between CO2 and the other two measurements (r-squared = 0). 20 years and no correlation. Hmmmm. Link

Western Antarctic Ice Chunk Collapses
NY TImes Tuesday March 25th

No Global Warming?

mm

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

You do not trust the validity of scientific studies if some government funding helps support conduct of the studies, but research funded by oil or coal or tobacco companies should be accepted as truth?

On the one side we have the government of the people, for the people and by the people; and On the other side we have oil/coal companies of the profit, for the profit, and screw the people. I wonder who we should believe?

I have degrees in chemistry and engineering, including a graduate degree, and my graduate research work (quite a few years ago) received financial support including some government support, and I can tell you that the government exerted absolutely no influence over the scientific measurements, data or the results of my research.

My graduate research work had nothing to do with climate science, it was on water treatment technology, but I can tell you that I trust the data of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Center for Atmospheric Research, and research that is subjected to rigorous, critical peer review by respected scientific organizations like the National Academy of Sciences much more than I trust research by scientists funded by oil or coal or tobacco companies that has not passed the scrutiny of rigorous, critical peer review.

By the way I worked for a Fortune 500 company many years ago shortly after getting out of graduate school, and was asked at times to fudge data to make our treatment systems look better than they were, and I observed our sales people flat out lie several times. I did not stay with that company for long, but it taught me first hand that industry is not a bastion of scientific integrity or truth.

Frankly, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed climate science accepts that global warming/climate change is occurring and that man's activities in the way of greenhouse gas emissions and to a lesser extent, increasing population/development and loss of natural vegetation are the primary cause.

Those who get their science training from the school of Rush Limbaugh and/or oil companies may disagree, but it matters little. There are those who still believe the earth is flat, or accept tobacco industry "science" that smoking is not hazardous to your health.

Frankly, it wouuld be nice to procreate forever; develop and pave every square inch of this planet; and spew whatever we want into the atmosphere with no consequences. I would also like to drink alcohol, smoke, eat pizza, steaks and ice cream to my hearts content, and never exercise with no health consequences. However, most of us are smart enough to know that we have to have some self-control and discipline if we want to live and be healthy. The same is true for our planet. We have to exert some controls on our behavior if want to preserve the natural systems that support life on this planet.

The social, economic, environmental, agricultural, political, health and military consequences of continued failure to address climate change will lead to much worse consequences long-term than if we fail to take action to address this problem now. You can pay me now or you can me later.

Our government and military experts recognize that the military will likely need to respond to the social, economic and political instability that will result from climate change if it goes unaddressed, http://www.securityandclimate.cna.org/ . This report produded by the Center for Naval Analyses and Institute for Public Research says:

The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today and the consequences projected by the consensus scientific opinion are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security. Moving beyond the arguments of cause and effect, it is important that the U.S. military begin planning to address these potentially devastating effects.

The consequences of climate change can affect the organization, training, equipping, and planning of the military services. The U.S. military has a clear obligation to determine the potential impacts of climate change on its ability to execute its missions in support of national security objectives. Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges. The decision to act should be made soon in order to plan prudently for the nation’s security. The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay.

The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability. Managing the security impacts of climate change requires two approaches: mitigating the effects we can control and adapting to those
we cannot. The U.S. should become a more constructive partner with the international community to help build and execute a plan to prevent destabilizing effects from climate change, including setting targets for long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Conclusion: We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.—General Zinni

We are lucky though, the sh*t won't hit the fan for several decades, and we'll likely be dead by then. Unfortunately, our children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren... will have to live with the sad legacy we leave them.

First, the issue is not whether or not there is warming but whether such climate change is due to human activities. As discussed in a number of different threads, all believe that the earth came out of the little ice age around 1800 or so and was actually warming before then from the coldest time during this period. Not surprisingly, temperatures have warmed since then otherwise we would still be frozen. U of Alaska has demonstrated that the temperture rise since that period is linear although CO2 is acknowledged not to be a factor for perhaps 3/4 of that time.

More specifically about the Antarctic a couple of thoughts. Studies (latest I believe is 2007 paper in JClimate) have shown that ice melting was concentrated primarily in the Antarctic peninsula which is the area discussed in the article. Nothing new here and has been known for a long time. At the same time, studies have also shown that most of the rest of Antarctic is cooling and has been doing so for at least four decades during which time CO2 has been increasing at a good rate.

So where does that leave things? Warming in one section of the continent is not evidence of generalize warming but rather simply warming in that area. I have not closely followed the research about the cause of this warming but have read about a number of potential suspects, including an underwater volcano in the vicinity of the peninsula, ocean current effects, and the ozone hole. Extending these thoughts it is illogical to assume that melting is prima facia evidence of climate change due to human forcings or anything else. It is certainly evidence of warming, if one believes that ice melts when it reaches a certain temperature, but the cause for the warming simply based on observation of melting is undetermined and could be due to one or more factors. Unsubstantiated claims about the cause are simply irresponsible whether made by a reporter or investigator. In a somewhat convoluted way, the article actually dances around some of these points but one has to read critically between the lines.

From my perspective, certainly not. Research sponsored by private or public monies should never be rejected because of the funding source. The research either stands or falls on its own merits. Unfortunately, too many global warming alarmists and some skeptics use the funding argument because they cannot knock the results for cause. Surely you have noticed this type of argument over and over, including posts in this forum. Except for those who are won over by sensationalism such tactics do not discredit the research and are recognized by many as an attempt to do so on the basis of innuendo in the spirit of McCarthyism. Valid rebuttal on the merits is strongly encouraged rather than ad hominem attacks.

I couldn't agree more, but critical peer review of climate change science studies by those with acknowledged credentials in the scientific community from organizations such as NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ,
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) , Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS), American Geophysical Union (AGU) , American Institute of Physics (AIP), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR),
American Meteorological Society (AMS), and Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) means so much more than disinformation promulgated by partisan think tanks funded by the oil industry.

There is little doubt about the basic conclusions of peer reviewed scientific literature on climate change. Climate change is occurring due to man's activities.

That's funny. You say that you could not agree more that research should stand or fall on it merits. However, in the next breath you try to discredit people by ad hominem attacks without the slightest attempt to discredit the research on the basis of the merits. An interesting but unimpressive argument. Why not give the high road a shot and tell us what is wrong with the data and charts that have been posted or linked to in numerous messages - many are from the journals reviewed by members of the "on high" societies.

You blindly embrace members of the societies that you hold on high even though many do not support the anthropogenic basis for climate change and in fact have publically declared their position. Does it bother you that the societies are not a monolithic blog of "humans did it" chanters but rather a collection of members who span the natural cause-human activity spectrum? You really have to get over the thought that members of a society support all positions that the society takes in the public arena. Are you a member of a professional society and if so do agree with all of its public positions? I certainly don't and know of nobody who does.

You hide behind the standard alarmists mantra of support by the oil industry. How do you handle research by members of the societies that you think so highly of who are in the human activities affects climate change camp and yet are supported by the likes of the oil industry? Yes, they are out there. How do you handle members of the societies who support the natural cause basis for climate change and may or may not be supported by the oil industry? Yes, they are out there. How do you handle folks like Lindzen who are firmly in the natural cause camp and yet have no fossil fuel industry support? Your argument leads us to the conclusion that if someone is free of the stain of fossil fuels that they walk in the light and we can trust their research; now you have put Lindzen on a pedestal. LOL. In my view, your position is quite shallow, inconsistent and certainly not a basis for serious critique of the issues.

You also choose to ignore the fact that hundreds of scientists who support the natural cause basis for climate change are highly qualified, belong to the societies that you think so highly of, and review for the journals that you hold in high esteem. How do you explain that? You also choose to ignore the recent review of the peer review journals that has been discussed before in this forum which demonstrated that half of the papers did not support either position and only about 6% strongly supported one or the other. How do you justify twising these results upside down in an attempt to claim consensus? Learn to luv the fact that there ain't no consensus and even if there were it does not make any difference in the scientific world (with your background I assume that you understand that).

Your view that "Climate change is occurring due to man's activities" is simply your belief system for which you have no evidence. Perhaps one day you will surprise us with a convincing argument. In the meantime, your belief system is your belief system and I'm sure that's fine with most of us but, I suspect, few will think it is worthy of discussion.

Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument.

Sorry boys, I’m a working man and can’t sit by the computer and respond immediately to all your propaganda.

It’s funny that you label me as dogmatic. I am just trying to help folks understand reality, and see the truth of global warming. I think you skeptics and disinformation spinners are the ones who are dogmatic. You refuse to open your mind to reality. I don’t see how any reasonable person who goes outside occasionally can fail to see the reality of global warming. Do you guys work for oil or coal companies?

Just tonight I got home from work and the evening news reported that a chunk of ice seven times the size of Manhattan separated from the Antarctic ice sheet. What reason would you give for this? Have those pesky environmental wackos been out there with blow torches, melting the ice? There was also a report tonight on the evening news about shoreline erosion in England causing homes to fall into the sea due to rising sea levels. Were those pesky environmental wackos out at night with shovels undermining the banks upon which these houses lie?

I live in Montana and we have a park here called Glacier National Park. In 25 years there won’t be any glaciers left in this park. Have those pesky environmental wackos and their blowtorches been sneaking into the Part at night and melting glaciers? They have great photographic history showing receding glaciers over more than a hundred years. Go to the Glacier Park website and look at this photographic history.

There is similar photographic history of glaciers receding in Alaska, Europe, South America, Asia, all over the world. Those pesky environmental wackos with their blow torches must really get around. What’s more these glaciers have been receding for well over a hundred years. Those pesky environmental wackos must have inherited the ice melting behavior from their forefathers who started melting ice in the 1800s. Their greatgrandfathers must have used torches instead of blowtorches, however, because I don’t think they had blowtorches a hundred years ago. Do you skeptics think the use of blowtorches by these pesky environmental wackos explains the rapidly accelerating rate of melting of ice around the world?

One of my hobbies is gardening and the growing season around here has expanded by more than a week in the last 50 years. I also do landscaping and we are in a Zone 3-4 area for plants, but now many plants in the Zone 5-6 area for more southern latitudes can be safely grown here. Average March temperatures have increased around here by 5 degrees F in the last 50 years. This means the winter snowpack melts much faster and we have much lower late summer river flows. That screws up the fishing migh