Mark,

So which of the sixty experts mentioned in the article do you think has published the most research papers on climate science?

Let us clean up our environment - because we like clean air, clean water and pristine countryside...but lets not fall for a scam.

this is it in a nutshell, Mark. We all want clean air and clean water, but the left in the US wants something in addition--special-interest money and votes.

I am from the "global warming is caused by the sun" crowd; sure, we cause pollution, but then again, so does everybody else, and we're held entiredly responsible for global warming by those who benefit from those claims, the Laura David/Al Gore types. The kooks, the hypocrites, and the uninformed/brainwashed masses are subscribers to this bull. Pardon me if I don't kookify myself, but your global warming message is falling on more and more deaf ears.

Every time I hear the "the experts were stunned" when it comes to anything, I have to wonder who declared them to be experts. Come on, The "experts" were surprised by the lack of a bursting housing bubble.
The "experts" were shocked at the rise in the stock market.
The same can be said with virtually anything they, the experts predict. Yes, if you lay claim to a topic and repeat it often enough either it will someday, somewhere come true or people will believe it just because they have heard it so often.
For the history impaired: do you know we had TWO ice ages even BEFORE man was here to create them?
Are you aware that the sun actually has cycles and runs hotter, sometimes for years?
Did you ever wonder why Greenland is called such? It was green before mother nature (not man) cycled and frooze it over.
Did you know that when we in America did such a good job of cleaning up the air, it allowed MORE sunlight (and heat) to warm the earth because of the lack of smog to block it. This is not to say we should allow smog to run unchecked. It means that nature corrects itself far better than the lunitic left that wants to control everthing in our lives including the very air we breathe.

"Yeah, down here in Texas we got rid of that 'environment', and we're all better off without it." - King of the Hill.

I think it's great that con's finally have an issue they are willing to look at and study and consider long term effects. Like anything else the full picture must be understood before any action should be taken. It is GREAT that they are taking the time to think this one through.
Hypocrites...

Face it...global warming is either happening or it isn't...

If it is, either we are effecting it or we aren't

The two schools of thought are....
Better safe than sorry let's make sure we're doing what we can to minimize any impact
Or the James Watt's gang who went to the magic show this morning to be told all those scientists are witches with evil in their hearts.

I am from the "global warming is caused by the sun" crowd;
Posted by: keefer

That's because you are an uninformed scientific illiterate who could not support your statement with even ONE SINGLE peer reviewed scientific paper. NOT ONE KEEFER. You're exactly what you said you didn't want to be....."an uninformed brainwashed kook....yep that's you....JUST ONE Keefer....of course you've never even looked in a science journal have you....ya KOOK.

Muirgeo,

How on earth would I know? Irrelevant - the issue is whether or not we (a) know enough about global warming and (b) whether a delay in inplementing the Kyoto protocol will have a negative affect...this group of scientists asserts that we need more study and delaying Kyoto won't be a problem.

Find a group of experts who have looked at this and see what they say...unless, that is, you are just going to blindly follow what people tell you...

Opus

If it was only that black and white...good Lord.

More than likely global warming is happening and there is not a damn thing we can do about it....just as Mars is hotter now according to scientists...must be the SUVS and humans on Mars.

So we either spend billions and perhaps trillions on a problem we cannot fix which means it's totally wasted money or we can sit back and enjoy the warm weather and watch mother Earth likely correct itself like it has done time and time again in the past.

*Shakes head*

Now I'm nothing more than a science fan but I do know "real" scientists and they've explained the problem of "global warming" to me like this.

Modern climate recording systems and standards have only been around for a hundred years. Our current meteorlogical equipment like doplar radar and the like weren't even invented until the last century. So beyond a certain point we no longer have "good" data, only ancedotal evidence and basic climate reports (It's cold, or it was snowing at this time etc.). This means that the data used for any projections or the like is actually quite small in compairison to the total data line.

In other words the earth is what? Two, Three Million years old? We've got one, two, maybe three HUNDRED years of reliable data. Now I punch the numbers into a calculator with 300 years divded by 2 million years. I end up with only .015% of the total data.

So you're telling me that with only that much data you can get accurate results? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Heck, even using the ancedotal evidence and historical information you can see how the climate has naturally changed over the time. During the time of Rome north Africa was the bread basket of the empire and they grew wine grapes in England. Now that sounds mighty different from what it's like now.

To me, there's just not enough evidence to support man made climate changes of the kind the alarmists are supporting.

About 30 years ago the 'experts' were certain that 'global cooling' was going to happen. Papers were published in prestigious scientific journals and the 'experts' lectured and universities conducted symposiums on how to stop 'global cooling'.

Then when it didn't happen, and the research grants dried up because no evidence of 'global cooling' could be found, the 'experts' shifted to 'global warming'. They got more grants and got published again.

As Gozer said, the climate information we have now in relation to the entire history of the earth is so small, and the technology we have used to measure the climate has changed over this tiny fraction of time.

The debate over climate change is like the story of the blind men and the elephant. Like climate change, we can only see based on what we can currently measure and only from our own individual perspectives, and preconceived notions.

The 'experts' come to the 'global warmimg' blame game based on their preconceived notions that man is solely responsible. It is this ignorance combined with great arrogance that man can be the sole cause of 'global warming', while there is no such blame related to things such as earthquakes and volcanoes, which are far more visibly destructive.

Let us clean up our environment - because we like clean air, clean water and pristine countryside.

I couldn't agree more Mark. If we could put politics aside and strive for a cleaner environment, we will have done what we can. Then we will have to deal with the changes that are coming as best we can.

There is pretty solid evidence that the Arctic is melting at a fast rate. This will raise the sea level enough to affect land as far away as Florida. Aerial photographs show that there has been a major loss of snow mass world wide. I'm going to Glacier National Park this summer, because at the rate they are melting there won't be any glaciers left by mid century.

How much, if any, is the result of our own pollution is still undetermined. But don't ignore the warnings from legitimate sources. Please do not lump all environmentalists together. Sure there are fanatics. But there are also simple folks like myself that likes to hike and snowshoe and put a serious scare into rainbow trout.I like to breathe clean air. I want the same things for my grandchildren, and their grandchildren.

Global warming? But my part of the country---admittedly, a very unimportant part, just 'flyover country' in a red state---has been getting colder every year since 1998. Should I get murkygeo to make sure those doing the measurements meet his standards and are not also "uninformed scientific illiterates"? After all, we don't demand degrees to own or use thermometers, or to record temperatures.

Gloval warming? How about those Japanese scientists who just warned of a new Ice Age within the next decade, due to----and this one is for you, keefer---DECREASED SOLAR ACTIVITY. They think they are scientists, but betcha murky would call them uninformed and/or illiterates---after all, they don't agree with him.

I have a hunch murky is pulling another lib stunt and pretending like he knows something when he doesn't. I can't quote sources right this minute, either, but I do know I have heard scientists talk about solar activity accounting for over 90% of any warming going on. I have heard explanations about how solar activity is not constant, and how the ranges in such activity cause climate changes. I also remember some pretty hysterical "scientific" warnings about a New Ice Age, and not too long ago, either. I do know that I have heard scientific discussions about how, while some glaciers are melting, others are expanding. I have heard discussions about the wide range of climates, and the dramatic climactic changes, throughout the history of the earth, far predating man-made pollution.

In my part of the world, the "Brown Cloud" had the PEs (that is, Pseudo Environmentalists) all wound up, so we cut down dramatically on auto emissions, cut out the use of chemicals for ice and snow control---and I'll be dipped, but that brown cloud expanded! It turns out that sand, Nature's Friend, gets ground down into teeny tiny particulates that hang, suspended, in the air, and wreak havoc with lungs.

Michael Crichton just wrote a great book which takes on the PEs and their Global Warming hissy fit. I can't remember the name of it, but it is written as fiction, with people shouting about the sky falling and getting hotter, too, and his protagonist counters the hysteria with science. It's an interesting technique, because Crichton annotates the book, though fiction, with footnotes and references to back up his protagonist's statements and positions.

The problem is that since the issue has become politicized it is difficult to get accurate information. It's not that we dont have enough "data". The earth is a little over 4 billion years old and we have only had an atmosphere for around 2 billion years. We can get information on the climate from several hundred million years ago through indirect evidence like tree rings, fossilized coral, ice floes, etc.. The current theory is most likely rather complete, however to is full of very difficult partial differential equations. These need to be solved numericly in any type of simmulation and the error in the simmulation is ussualy proportional to the running time. The simmulations are also very susceptible to large changes in solutions for small changes in initial conditions ( the butterfly effect ). Numericly solving theese equations is a fairly new science and only really started with the advent of the computer. As computing continues to advance I would expect that the simmulations will become more accurate however the models currently in use may be too simple to have much practicle value and allready may take several weeks to run. The point is that while no definate conclusions can be made now, it is only a matter of time before we solve the problem of whether man made C02 is responsible for warming or not.

Alms,

Call them what you want (PE's), but are you willing to work for cleaner air? Purer rivers?

Are you willing to look beyond Kansas (flyover Red State?)? The average temperature at the Arctic IS warmer, and the melting IS a problem, especially if you are an indeginous person or polar bear. Or will be in the future if you live in Atlantic coastal areas.

And Michael Crichton? He graduated from Harvard Medical School. How does that make him an expert in environmentalism? Would you go to an environmentalist to have your appendix taken out? Then why go to a doctor for environmental information?

So go ahead and mock the "chicken littles" But do what you can to make the skies cleaner. And that could be enforcing the existing laws on chemical plants. Or poultry producers. Walk the two blocks to the 7-11 instead of driving. If we all do our part, we will have done the best we can to stop the advancement of global warming.

.... wants something in addition--special-interest money and votes."

Don't they all keefer? Can you deny the coal or oil or tobacco industries have the deepest pockets around? Can you deny that former lobbiests have been appointed to government posts that are supposed to "regulate" the industry they came from?

It is just a necessary evil that any special interest group has to pander for their funding.Unless we do something drastic to limit campaign spending and lobby group "donations."

Then we might see legislation that benefits society and not ExxonMobilShellConoccoBP

I say beware of consensu science. Anytime you hear that it is "the consensus of scientitsts that ..." ... you can be sure that there is nothing truly convincing to support that consensus. When is the last time you heard someone say "it is the consensus of scientists that humans breath oxygen."? How about, "It is the consensus of scientists that a force called gravity keeps us from spinning out into space." The reason you never hear those statements is because those are scientifically established fact.

Gozer makes a great point re: the mi9niscule portion of useful data we have for valid analysis. I don't know if the earth is warming to a clinically significant degree or not. If it is, I don't know what the causes are. I tend to believe that if it is, man is a small part of the reason.

But I am 100% sure that no one else knows either. There is much debate in the scientific community over this issue, and it is far from established scientific fact. At one time a "consensus" of US supreme court justices established that Americans of African descent are 4/5 of a person. That consensus didn't make it so then. And consensus science is equally absurd.

Actually, science relies on consensus, because experiments have to be replicable. And gravity is not a "scientifically established fact," that's why it's called the Theory of Gravity. But scientists have come to the consensus that it's a valid theory.

While Gozer may have a valid point about how much data we have, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 2 or 3 million (your mileage may vary with creationism, but 2 or 3 million is still a no-go there).

Also, it was a compromise (not consensus) of the founding fathers to count slaves as 3/5 (not 4/5) of a person for the purposes of assigning Congressional representatives. No one actually thought slaves were 3/5 of a person, the issue was whether it was fair to count them at all, and a compromise was reached.

I'm not much of a fan of global warming, but I agree here with Ash: let's keep things as clean as we can because it's objectively better to have clean air and water, and the problem is lobbying itself. It's all the same.

"The reason you never hear those statements is because those are scientifically established fact."

But, DFLAN, they were not always established facts. Before Newton, for example, no one could explain why an apple falls downward from the tree. It just did.

Today no one can say absolutely what is causing global warming or if it is temporary or permanent. But one fact has been scientifically measured, and that is for the last three years the ice fields in the Arctic are at or near record lows. All you have to do is drive through Los Angles and you can see the air you are breathing.

So whats the beef you have with cleaning up the air? The water? If it slows down or reverses global warming, we win. If it doesn't but we are breathing clearner air, we win.

What say you, DFLAN Gozer, Alms?

"But, DFLAN, they were not always established facts. Before Newton, for example, no one could explain why an apple falls downward from the tree. It just did."

bit off topic but...

Newton couldn't explain why the apple fell. Newtons achievement was to relize that the force that caused the apple to fall was the same that kept the moon in orbit with the earth and the earth in the orbit with the sun. He also was able to express the equations of motion mathematicly when he invented the calculus, that along with his force law for gravity could give quantitative predictions consistent with observation. He didnt know why gravity was there just its effects. Einstein tried to explain gravity as a space time curvature and a quatum physisist will probably tell you their may be a graviton particle. No expirement however has shown conclusivly what the cause of gravity is. That is why it is still the "theory of gravity".

"But, DFLAN, they were not always established facts. Before Newton, for example, no one could explain why an apple falls downward from the tree. It just did."

bit off topic but...

Newton couldn't explain why the apple fell. Newtons achievement was to relize that the force that caused the apple to fall was the same that kept the moon in orbit with the earth and the earth in the orbit with the sun. He also was able to express the equations of motion mathematicly when he invented the calculus, that along with his force law for gravity could give quantitative predictions consistent with observation. He didnt know why gravity was there just its effects. Einstein tried to explain gravity as a space time curvature and a quatum physisist will probably tell you their may be a graviton particle. No expirement however has shown conclusivly what the cause of gravity is. That is why it is still the "theory of gravity".

Ash, Muriego, Barney, etc....please answer this one question. PLEASE

Why is Mars also getting warmer right now?

I believe they have the same heat source, the sun.

Please answer that question. Thank you kindly.

Ash, Muriego, Barney, etc....please answer this one question. PLEASE

Why is Mars also getting warmer right now?

I believe they have the same heat source, the sun.

Please answer that question. Thank you kindly.

Yesterday I saw a study come out that now wine may not be good for your heart, even though the last 5 years scientists have said it is good for your heart.

Scientists and the study of science itself is about discovery and learning and consistently processing information.

Things change. Global warming does exist in SOME parts of the globe and overall the globe is about .3 warmer than it was 50 years ago...or so we think because temperature gauges are better today than then.

The question remains, what causes it. If someone on the left could please answer me why it is warmer on Mars (so say those scientists) now considering they don't have people or SUVs but do have that Sun, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Warrior,

here's your answer: NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE, here, mars, even the sun gets hotter and colder through cycles....that is not the concern, nothing can be done about that, it happens, anyone who didn't sleep though 4th grade science should know this

The question is does human activity play any role in climate change ON EARTH, that is not in sync with the planets NATURAL shifts?

do you know...probably not,
do I...nope,
can it be happening...It can...
might it not....it might not

should we follow the con's and "cut and run" away from taking precautions? You tell me

Being against clean air is like being for cancer and the bogey man. Of course I think we should do what we can to keep the air clean, the water fresh, and the landscape unlittered. The fact is, fully industrialized countries like the US have pretty clean air. take a look at buildings in Milwaukee from the early industrial revolution. They were built with cream colored brick, and they are all black today. Why? from the soot in the air of the ealry industrial revolution ... produced by coal.

Today, our air is infinitely cleaner than it was at the turn of the century, for example. We are a mature industrialized nation, and we have come to realize that it is in our best interest as a species to have a bit of responsible stewardship of the land. Folks like Teddy Roosevelt put us on that path. Of course it is the right thing to do, and there is no reason to make up dire doomsday predictions to force us to do so. I have no problem with taking care of the land, sea and air in a responsible fashion. I do have a problem with a bunch of long-haired yankee hippie sass bufoons trying to tell me i should forsake running water and electrical appliances to live in a yert on the outskirts of Siberia ... because if i don't New York will be swallowed in a tidal wave within the next 12 months.

The panick tactic is ridiculous, and the science to support is is easily challenged. Those who support it like a religion clearly have an end game ... they hate all industry, they hate all capitalism, and they look for a less prosperous society that requires total government support for order and sustainance.

*SIGH*

DFLAN, you just don't get it do you? There are a few fanatics, but who exactly is telling you to live in a yert on the outskirts of Siberia? Could you be over reacting? Yes I did suggest you might want to walk a few blocks to the 7-11 instead of driving. But then again I'm not a hippie bufoon, although I do have long hair. I ain't gonna let no tobbaco chewing, NASCAR lovin' redneck tell me how to groom myself. (That was satire,FYI)

Because being for clean air is like being for a cure to cancer, does not make it any less noble a goal.

And as far as panic tactics....well there seems to be a lot of that going around concerning Iran.

"Newton couldn't explain why the apple fell."

Of course you are right Raymond. I got a little ahead of myself with that explanation. But it is true once he made those observations we were able to use them for our advantage. Gravity is a little like faith. You can't prove it but you can't ignore what it does.

Gravity enhanced our paradigm of the physical world.

"Gravity is a little like faith. You can't prove it but you can't ignore what it does."

Why Ash, you're sounding almost spiritual.

You might add that macro evolution is also "a little like faith, along with man's ability to halt or reverse global warming.

Opus

The "precautions" you talk of could be in the TRILLIONS of dollars and cost Americans a ton of jobs in the process.

Are you ready to absorb that based on something that may have no impact at all that you can effect?

Warrior,

Chevy is coming out with line of cars that run on 85% ethanol. Here in California we passed a law that will result in solar panels on houses that will replace 3 full sized power plants.

That's jobs for farmers who grow corn, that's jobs for people who make ethanol, that's jobs for people who make solar panels, thats jobs for research that will further improve our renewable energy sources.....its LESS jobs and money for the oil companies and its less Mountain tops in West Virginia blow up and its less dependency on ME oil.....Where's the trillions of dollars cost? What the heck are you thinking. I'm worried about the trillion spent on the mideast wars to control the oil markets.

Finally the science on climate change is found at the IPCC web site. Google IPPC...read it...educate yourself. It's a very real threat to our future. You can ignore the inconvenient facts of science and instead make up silly unfounded excuses about excess cost at your children's expense. THINK MAN THINK!

"Here in California..." muirgeo

This explains a lot.

"We passed a law that will result in solar panels on houses that will replace 3 full sized power plants."

"Where's the trillions of dollars cost? What the heck are you thinking."

Passing local laws and allowing the market to come up with solutions is the American way of solving problems. What we on the right are opposed to is having the destiny of the US dependent on the global community...ie Kyoto. If that were enacted, there would be the trillions of dollars and millions of lost jobs here in the US. Thanks but I've seen how the global community (the UN) works, its not all altruism, sweetness and light.

You on the left seem to believe that everyone on your side of the issue have the best intentions. News flash...it aint so. There are many in the world who would like to use this or any issue to bring down the US, or at a minimum excercise some degree of control over us.

9 out of 10 of the worlds most polluted cities are in China. 90% of the water in China is polluted to some degee. The rivers running from her sores are polluting the oceans at an alarming rate. The magnitude of pollution there is astonishing, and yet there is no call for the environmentalists in the west for the Chinese implement environmental measures.

So unless and until the left are willing to be as tough on environmentla issues throughout the world, you have no credibility on the issue here in the US.

BTW: Did you happen to see that the BBC was running a program on the OVERSELLING of global warming?

Muirego

I live in California as well. The "trillions" of dollars came from a study done on the Kyoto protocol...you know, the one where 95 Senators voted against it and ZERO, NADA, ZILCH voted for it.

Now, I am not against ethanol or hybrids or solar energy or any of that stuff. In fact, most conservatives I know aren't either, even though most liberals I know would like to lie about that and imply that conservatives are that way.

The issue is how do you get to mass market concept that makes it economically beneficial and environmentally beneficial.

Show me a plan that does both and I'm all for it. Show me one that costs a ton of money and doesn't do anything for the environment that is PROVEABLE and it's just a feel good jerkoff session.

I will say this, however, anything that gets us off reliance on the Middle East is a good thing in my opinion, but that includes drilling ANWR in the short term (lots of AMERICAN jobs) as well as finding alternative fuels.

Finally, why do you guys continue to allow China, India and others a free pass? Do you realize that China and India use more oil today than ALL OF THE WORLD did in 1998. That's how much their growing economies are sucking oil out of the Middle East and raising prices across the board. Yet they get a pass?

Sorry, no dice.