Mark, you seem to be a good Catholic, so answer me this?

Why do you seem so content with letting your fellow man destroy the world that God supposedly gave him? I mean, the Vatican has made its position clear; why are you so at odds with it? You are Catholic, and thusly follow the Vatican, right?

Rana,

And so have I - in keeping with my religious beliefs, I assert we must be good stewards of the world God created for us...but stewards are to use the world, and also worship God because this world, as Our Lord instructs, is a passing thing and it is the life of the world to come which will be permanent.

Deleted - Obscenity; commenter banned

it is as much a mythological creation for mental convenience as the god of thunder was for our ignorant ancestors.

Or the god you worship is for you. Because, you know, there's just as much evidence for the "thunder god" as there is for your god. But you're not one to let evidence--or the lack thereof--distract you from a good rant.

Sees,

Hardly, but that is not the point - "the environment" is a whole bunch of things, not just one thing...and the complex relationships between these things cannot be boiled down to a simple "if a, b". That is the fundamental flaw of environmentalist alarmism - they always take one element and make it the be-all and end-all of existence. Now we've got what amounts to religious fanatics for global warming...there's your scientific consensus..

Gore is now a god for the godless, someone to worship for those who lack spirituality. Nevermind that his doomful message of global warming is false, the hysterics who have latched onto him have done so because they lack any defining sense in their lives outside of complaining.

Were global warming somehow validated and solved tomorrow, those same idolaters would simply find another cause to fill the spiritual void they exert so much effort denying in themselves.

Were global warming somehow validated and solved tomorrow, those same idolaters would simply find another cause to fill the spiritual void they exert so much effort denying in themselves.

The last quarter century has seen a number of such causes, from the Alar/apple scare to the population bomb to global famine to global cooling to global economic collapse. None have lived up to their press notices, and each has inevitably run its course. The GW scare is different, though in the respect that it's been going on for nearly 20 years. A great many in the scientific community have bought into it, and a great many more in the media and the world of politics have latched onto it. Within those diverse groups you have two schools of thought, the hysterical alarmists like Gore and the pragmatists who realize that climate is, simply put, not something that man can control. The Gorons have issued the easily verifyable time limit of a decade, after which it will be too late to act. The pragmatists, on the other hand, think it's already too late. They said as much on February 2nd in the first of 4 reports to be issued this year by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

The scientists - using their strongest language yet on the issue - said now that [the] world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. (emphasis - mine)

On one hand, it's hard for any rational person to take Al Gore seriously. OTOH, it's also hard to take anything associated with the United Nations, as the IPCC is, seriously. Does that mean, as Cyberactor insinuated in a previous GW thread, that we should just go ahead and trash the planet?
Does anyone here believe that? I don't.

Several of us have suggested in previous threads that the common ground on this issue is that we all want to be the best stewards of the planet that we can possibly be; to leave it in better shape than we found it for our decendents. If that has a positive effect on the global climate, fine. I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

I suggested previously that the United States should embark on an Apollo program for energy independence, and that we should set 10 years as a goal. Such a program should include an all-out assault on the development of alternative energy sources as well as immediate exploration, development and refinement of existing resources.
Unlike the Apollo space program, however, an energy independence program won't have that "one small step for man, one giant step for mankind" moment, but we will know after 10 years whether or not we're headed in the right direction. In the end, this is less about whether or not the actions of man can alter the global temperature by a fraction of a degree, and more about what kind of a world we want to leave those that come after us.

The Gorebot fanatics are far more dangerous than you think spook.

The 'consensus' now outweighs reasonable dissent from opponents. Those who do not toe the line of the Gorebots are vilified and accused of bribery by 'special interests', and threatened with loss of credentials and their positions within the scientific community. Members of the MSM now treat opponents of the 'consensus', as outcasts and their own stature as professionals questioned.

"Studies" such as the supposed link between global warmimg and increase in child fever cases, which would normally be laughed at by reasonable people, are embraced by the MSM as legitimate.

The danger to real science and research is not that there is a dispute regarding a possible link to global warming and human activity, but that political agendas will define what is legitimate research, and legitimate dissent. Galileo and Copernicus were victims of 'consensus'. They had to conform to the 'consensus' which was defined by both the scholars at the time, and the Church.

...and we know what happened to both of them when they promoted their dissents.

The Gorebot fanatics are far more dangerous than you think spook.

Well, Hermie, they're fanatics, that's for sure. Their biggest single weakness is that they have this self-imposed 10 year time limit during which time they have to either elect a majority of like-minded individuals to governments both here and around the world who would impose life-altering laws, regulations and taxes on everyone, or they have to convince the majority of people on this planet to voluntarily alter their lifestyles in a significant way. Sorry, it just ain't gonna happen.

Political agendas have been trying to define legitimate research for the last few years, and with some measure of success. However, people are beginning to wake up, and about 90% of the scientists involved agree that human activity is having an effect on global climate change.

The only dispute seems to be that you've made global warming a partisan issue.

Which makes no sense at all.

I'm sorry but why do people constantly quote religion, political or government organizations when it comes to global warming which is clearly a scientific issue. Don't see this with other scientific issues only global warming it seems

Data is out there, thousands of studies validated by thousands of scientists.
global temps have increased
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/last2000-large.jpg

oceans are rising
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051124_rising_seas.html

glaciers are melting worldwide
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v320/n6063/abs/320607a0.html

our ecosystems are already being devestated
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/31/coral.death.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13147504/

and the temp increase closely matches the predicted temp increase from the greenhouse gases we have released
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v319/n6049/abs/319109a0.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1110252v2

BTW
hundreds more scientific studies where these came from

The 90% figure is a figure thrown around, but these scientists are from fields not connected to climateology.

As for 'waking up', even the proponents of the Gorebot eco-religion cannot hold their research up to the scutiny that all scientific theories are supposed to be held to.

Ah yes. The globalwarminingists. Not quite as bad as the abortionologists.

For all you pro- or anti- Goracles who accept or dismiss global warming because of the messenger perhaps a recitation on the science may help

20 years ago scientist were onto global warming. Here's the article check it out yourself. Please note the correct prediction

From Nature (one of the top peer review science journals in the world)
Nature 319, 109 - 115 (09 January 1986); doi:10.1038/319109a0

Future global warming from atmospheric trace gases
ROBERT E. DICKINSON & RALPH J. CICERONE
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA

abstract
Human activity this century has increased the concentrations of atmospheric trace gases, which in turn has elevated global surface temperatures by blocking the escape of thermal infrared radiation. Natural climate variations are masking this temperature increase, but further additions of trace gases during the next 65 years could double or even quadruple the present effects, causing the global average temperature to rise by at least 1 °C and possibly by more than 5 °C. If the rise continues into the twenty-second century, the global average temperature may reach higher values than have occurred in the past 10 million years.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v319/n6049/abs/319109a0.html

since 1860 global CO2 emissions have increased by more than 1000% and CO2 levels are 40% higher. What does this mean ....let's ask scientists instead of politicians ....OK!

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include: (i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1110252v2

The recent paper in Science Express by Hansen et al (on which I am a co-author) has garnered quite a lot of press attention and has been described as the 'smoking gun' for anthropogenic climate change. We have discussed many of the relevant issues here before, but it may be useful to go over the arguments again here.
The key points of the paper are that: i) model simulations with 20th century forcings are able to match the surface air temperature record, ii) they also match the measured changes of ocean heat content over the last decade, iii) the implied planetary imbalance (the amount of excess energy the Earth is currently absorbing) which is roughly equal to the ocean heat uptake, is significant and growing, and iv) this implies both that there is significant heating "in the pipeline", and that there is an important lag in the climate's full response to changes in the forcing.

Realclimate.org

That's Hollywood for you... However doesn't global dimming counteract global warming.

the result of this???

the oceans have measurable risen and continue to
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051124_rising_seas.html

ecosystems are starting to collapse
areas of the Indian and Pacific ocean where mortality rates -- mostly from warming waters -- have been in the 90 percent range in past years, said Tom Goreau of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. Goreau called what's happening worldwide "an underwater holocaust."

The heat causes the symbiotic algae that provides food for the coral to die and turn white. That puts the coral in critical condition. If coral remains bleached for more than a week, the chance of death soars, according to NOAA scientists.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/31/coral.death.ap/index.html

world's glaciers are melting
During the past 150 years, mountain glaciers have shown a worldwide retreat. .
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v320/n6063/abs/320607a0.html

and that is why this is the case

The American Geophysical Union (or AGU) is a nonprofit organization of over 41,000 members from 130 countries. AGU's activities are focused on the organization and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international field of geophysics. The geophysical sciences involve four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences; solid-Earth sciences; hydrologic sciences; and space sciences.

WASHINGTON - The American Geophysical Union has adopted a new position statement, "Human Impacts on Climate." It was adopted by a unanimous vote of the AGU Council at its regular meeting in San Francisco, California, on December 12.

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
se

When you look at Mt Saint Helens in Washington state as an example, the scientists, environmentalists and others thought that it would take hundreds of thousands of years for her to restore herself after she blew. Within 10-20 years she had almost totally restored herself. Are there scars from the eruption? Yes. My one problem with the environmental movement is their idea that we as humans are significant enough to affect what happens. The ecosystem is much greater than we are, and is not nearly as fragile as the enviros think it is. Is there global warming? Could be. The environment is cyclical. We could be going though a warming period now, but 20 years from now, back to a cooling period. That's the way the environment works.

The recent paper in Science Express by Hansen et al (on which I am a co-author) has garnered quite a lot of press attention and has been described as the 'smoking gun' for anthropogenic climate change.

Amp, I'm sorry; I normally leave this kind of smart-ass answer to those on your side like Cyberactor, but I'm getting tired of it being a one-way street. Would that be the same James Hansen of NASA fame, the James Hansen who was a science consultant to the Kerry campaign, the same James Hansen who accepted a $250,000 grant (I know he called it an award -- it's still 1/4 million clams) from Terresa Heinz Kerry's foundation -- that James Hansen?

Amp, if you will allow me to ask you some questions:
1. You mention a radiative imbalance which, I assume is attributable to forcings of anthropogenic origin. Can we assume that without anthropogenic forcings there would be a balance? Or is the implication that when the earth starts to heat up, the lag in the system will cause things to continue to heat up well after the forcings are removed? Or are both assumptions true?

2. You indicated that global CO2 emissions have increased by more than 1000% since 1860, and CO2 levels are 40% higher -- I presume since the same time point. How far back do you have to go to get to a time where the CO2 concentrations are as high as they are now? And what are the presumed factors that caused former CO2 spikes?

3. This one is kind of off the subject, but I'll ask it anyway... Some developing countries, most notably China, but also India, Malaysia, and Brazil, are increasing emissions of both greenhouse gases and aerosols at alarmingly accelerated rates. In China in particular, some of their cities have such a significant smog problem that they are now beginning to be motivated to do something about it. The smog is mostly an aerosol effect, so it seems to me that that is the issue they will target, not GHG emissions (much like developed countries started doing in the early 80s). If so, then the net effect will be a continued increase in GHG concentrations while the aerosol concentration drops. Do you think that is a reasonable expectation? If so, can you estimate the effect it might have?

4. Again off the subject, you have apparently been immersed in the debate and thus have thought about it a lot. Have you thought about potential practical solutions as well? If so, what are your thoughts?

Thanks.

This is why it is so important to deconstruct the claims of the radical Left. PM says "..about 90% of the scientists involved..." Let me rewrite that: "..about 90% of the scientists INVOLVED..."

Not, you note, 90% of scientists, but only about 90% of those already INVOLVED in some amorphous group, I guess, since PM makes no mention of involvement in WHAT. But it makes sense that to become involved with any group or organization, one would probably already be predisposed to agreeing with the goals and agendas of that organization.

Rico's queries are good ones, phrased far more elegantly and technically than any of my own could be. As we know that we create only a small amount of the total of CO2 which enters the atmosphere, and as we know that most CO2 is created by plant and animal life, and as we know that CO2 has been recorded at much greater levels than those which now exist (data from archeological sources) and as we know that there have been times when the earth was covered with a vastly greater amount of vegetation than it is now, I too questioned the broad statement that "since 1860 global CO2 emissions have increased by more than 1000%..." How much had CO2 dropped in the century or two prior to 1860? Was this 100% increase really just a return to normalcy, or to an average?

As we were coming out of the Little Ice Age, with the predictable warming trend which made that possible, and as increased warming would naturally lead to increased vegetation, this claim does not prove that this increase, if it does in fact exist, is accounted for solely by human activity.

Gee, if we were to stop the deforestation of the rain forest and halt the cutting of old-growth forests, we would really be making a mess of things, wouldn't we?

Any objective rational discussion of global warming would include historical records of similar climate changes, a discussion of the effect of increased (and decreased) solar activity on such changes, the ADVANTAGES of some degree of global warming, and an effort to factor in the possibility of human activity's impact on it all. But we don't see that.

I suggest that the hysterical efforts of the global warming crowd be referred to as the Watermelon Revolution, and the adherents of this religion as Melon Heads.

1) Hansen's paper in science (which has been confirmed by numerous other studies) shows a serious lag in the warming trend

2)over the milenia CO2 concentrations have been up and down but they have not been this high in at least 100,000 but more likely 1million years. An interesting aspect is that great die offs of species coincide with sudden shifts in CO2 levels. I'll have to look up the studies

3)Aerosol cooling effects are well appreciated and are actually delaying global warming effects. I'll have to look up but it isn't insignificant.

4) Technologies to solve the problem are fledgling right now. The most important thing to do is address the emmisions (since CO2 atmospheric half life is over 100 years). It is more realistic then most presumed but requires addressing energy policy and infrastructure.

I'll give more references when I have time to gather them

Just to quickly give you an idea
Volcanic releases are about 1% of the amount which is released by human activities

The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260–280µL/L immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years.

The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800,000 years before the present.[11] During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied between 180–210 µL/L during ice ages, increasing to 280–300 µL/L during warmer interglacials

Current CO2 levels 383 ul/L

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html

Mark:

“From my perspective, it is a form of religion," said Bruce Crofts, 69, as he held a banner aloft for the East Toronto Climate Action Group amid a lively prelecture crowd outside the old hall.
"The religion for this group is doing something for the environment”

Mr. Crofts was speaking from his own personal perspective. Ask for the perspective of another person at that lecture and they’d have something different to say. But you intentionally and egregiously insinuate that this one man’s perspective represents that of all those concerned with global warming and environmentalists in general. In this case, you insinuate that all environmentalists are part of some superstitious, fanatical, pseudo-religious cult. You’re always looking for the straw men - those people that are easy to blow down. Just remember, for every straw man on the left, there is an equal but opposite straw man on the right.

When it comes to the environment and right-wingers, all roads lead to Hollyweird; that’s where you can find lots of straw people. Because of their celebrity status, our stars of the silver screen are given a persistent voice in the media. And boy do they have lots of stupid things to say - including the sharing of their uninformed opinions about the environment. Once again, you employ these straw people as a means to an end, linking them to all people concerned with the environment, seeking to discredit environmentalism as a whole. Bono isn’t conducting climate studies. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins aren’t examining soil erosion on steep slopes that have been clear-cut. Sean Penn isn’t trotting out to lakes to study acid rain. Your ploy seeks to use these straw people to discredit by tenuous association those who are conducting legitimate environmental science and those who simply want clean air, water, and soil.

You wrote:
“This is superstition, fanaticism and idolatry, all rolled into one - a neat trick and I think that it really only could be pulled off by the post-Christian left.”

You really should pay more attention to your own Christian brotherhood. If you want to legitimately find a group of people that view global warming in a genuinely religious sense, look no further than Evangelical Christians. Over a year ago, 86 prominent Evangelical Christian leaders backed an initiative to mitigate global warming, saying that “millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors." So as much as you’d like your “post-Christian” hyperbole to be reality, it’s not.

I see that you like to use the word “idol” and “idolatry.” What about this website? What about your idolatry and sycophantism for George W. Bush “The Decider?” Perhaps its fitting to talk briefly about your idol’s attitude towards the environment.

The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act were not pieces of legislation created out of illegitimate reasons. The reality was that by the 1970s we had so spoiled our land, water, and air that regulation was the only option. Rivers were so polluted as to be flammable. Superfund sites were proliferating at an alarming rate. Air pollution was a serious problem for millions. We’ve made great strides in cleaning things up since then. It would be ridiculous to let things slip back to where they were. But the Mandate for Idiocy put forth by your idol- Bush “The Decider” - calls for rolling back these environmental safeguards.

What’s perhaps the greatest tragedy is that pollution is foisted predominantly upon the poor. This is because it is most often the poor that live in proximity to the smoke stacks, uranium mines, and other sources of grossest pollution. Not surprisingly, these are the cheapest places to live. Instead of benefiting from a healthy environmental, the poor suffer in shorter life spans and having to care for children whose health has been compromised. Please remind me, what did Christ say about the poor?

I think we should site the next toxic waste dump in your backyard. I suggest we put the next incinerator in your community. I believe we should build the next hazardous waste processing facility in plain view of your kitchen window. But you and others of your ilk are so hypocritical that you’d be whining like a bunch of blue blooded liberals if any of these situations were proposed for your town. No, we’ll leave these things to the poor who have no lobbying power, no real representatives in our democratic system.

You sit at your computer using God’s word to support a political agenda. Moreover, you employ the word of God to defend your own ego and demonize your fellow man. Is this what it means to be a good Christian, a Republican Christian?

Mark:
“From my perspective, it is a form of religion," said Bruce Crofts, 69, as he held a banner aloft for the East Toronto Climate Action Group amid a lively prelecture crowd outside the old hall.
"The religion for this group is doing something for the environment”

Mr. Crofts was speaking from his own personal perspective. Ask for the perspective of another person at that lecture and they’d have something different to say. But you intentionally and egregiously insinuate that this one man’s perspective represents that of all those concerned with global warming and environmentalists in general. In this case, you insinuate that all environmentalists are part of some superstitious, fanatical, pseudo-religious cult. You’re always looking for the straw men - those people that are easy to blow down. Just remember, for every straw man on the left, there is an equal but opposite straw man on the right.

When it comes to the environment and right-wingers, all roads lead to Hollyweird; that’s where you can find lots of straw people. Because of their celebrity status, our stars of the silver screen are given a persistent voice in the media. And boy do they have lots of stupid things to say - including the sharing of their uninformed opinions about the environment. Once again, you employ these straw people as a means to an end, linking them to all people concerned with the environment, seeking to discredit environmentalism as a whole. Bono isn’t conducting climate studies. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins aren’t examining soil erosion on steep slopes that have been clear-cut. Sean Penn isn’t trotting out to lakes to study acid rain. Your ploy seeks to use these straw people to discredit by tenuous association those who are conducting legitimate environmental science and those who simply want clean air, water, and soil.

You wrote:
“This is superstition, fanaticism and idolatry, all rolled into one - a neat trick and I think that it really only could be pulled off by the post-Christian left.”

You really should pay more attention to your own Christian brotherhood. If you want to legitimately find a group of people that view global warming in a genuinely religious sense, look no further than Evangelical Christians. Over a year ago, 86 prominent Evangelical Christian leaders backed an initiative to mitigate global warming, saying that “millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors." So as much as you’d like your “post-Christian” hyperbole to be reality, it’s not.

I see that you like to use the word “idol” and “idolatry.” What about this website? What about your idolatry and sycophantism for George W. Bush “The Decider?” Perhaps its fitting to talk briefly about your idol’s attitude towards the environment.

The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act were not pieces of legislation created out of illegitimate reasons. The reality was that by the 1970s we had so spoiled our land, water, and air that regulation was the only option. Rivers were so polluted as to be flammable. Superfund sites were proliferating at an alarming rate. Air pollution was a serious problem for millions. We’ve made great strides in cleaning things up since then. It would be ridiculous to let things slip back to where they were. But the Mandate for Idiocy put forth by your idol- Bush “The Decider” - calls for rolling back these environmental safeguards.

What’s perhaps the greatest tragedy is that pollution is foisted predominantly upon the poor. This is because it is most often the poor that live in proximity to the smoke stacks, uranium mines, and other sources of grossest pollution. Not surprisingly, these are the cheapest places to live. Instead of benefiting from a healthy environmental, the poor suffer in shorter life spans and having to care for children whose health has been compromised. Please remind me, what did Christ say about the poor?

I think we should site the next toxic waste dump in your backyard. I suggest we put the next incinerator in your community. I believe we should build the next hazardous waste processing facility in plain view of your kitchen window. But you and others of your ilk are so hypocritical that you’d be whining like a bunch of blue blooded liberals if any of these situations were proposed for your town. No, we’ll leave these things to the poor who have no lobbying power, no real representatives in our democratic system.

You sit at your computer using God’s word to support a political agenda. Moreover, you employ the word of God to defend your own ego and demonize your fellow man. Is this what it means to be a good Christian, a Republican Christian?

Please excuse the inadvertent double post.

Mark:
Your assertion that the environment “as an entity” doesn’t exist is spurious, if not entirely asinine. In your comment to the user “Sees” you elaborate that the environment “is a whole bunch of things, not just one thing..”
To illustrate the substance of your reasoning, lets apply your logic to the automobile. An automobile “as an entity” doesn’t exist. The automobile - like the environment - “is a whole bunch of things, not just one thing..” I have a suggestion for validating your logic: go play in traffic. If there were some way you could place yourself in the path of earth’s orbit, I’d suggest doing that. But playing in traffic is more practical. Like an automobile, the parts of the environment comprise the whole.

I can understand your motivation in offering such shoddy logic. You want your minions to believe that “the environment as an entity” is another leftist fabrication, another grand hoax concocted by liberals. What’s sad, if not patently pathetic, is that your half-bright readers will believe you.