Mark, you did not introduce Bjarne Andresen correctly. It should read,

"Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen and former employee of The American Petroleum Institute..."

Bjarne Andresen = Exxon.

The GW crowd has accepted the theories and the supposed causes, as those in a cult have accepted the 'facts'.

Compare the cult of GW with any other cult: The leaders make the 'faithful' toil in the fields and make all the 'sacrifices', while they live in luxury (Like Gore, his mansions and private jets). You can't ask questions or challenge the 'teachings' of the leader, else you are either shunned or threatened (Like climatologists who dispute the GW 'consensus; and are now threatened with loss of their positions or acceditations by the 'faithful'.) If the leader has been shown to have 'transgressed', he can claim that he has been given exemption/forgiveness. (Like 'carbon offset' purchases).

Hollywood's embrace of GW is of no surprise. For those of you who are old enough, remember 'The Hunger Project'? It was a cult-like entity which the Hollywood Left enthusiastically embraced and spent millions on. Yet, 'The Hunger Project' was never about actually feeding people. It was supposedly a way to make people more 'aware' of world hunger...and that 'awareness' would be enough to 'solve' the problem. Like most scams, the money ended up other than where it was supposed to go.

'The Hunger Project' was never about actually feeding people.

That's the problem with most liberal ideas, Hermie. They are seldom about actually solving problems. More often than not, they are about one of two things: using the issue to achieve power; or making those who raise the issue "feel good".

Remember the scare that resulted in this bet?

I think one of the main reasons I am so skeptical about anthropogenic induced global warming is that I'm old enough to have seen scare after scare shoveled into the waste bin of history.

Hermie, unfortunately the money went EXACTLY where it was suppose to go… if you were one of the one’s collecting. If however you were one of the givers, you are quite correct. And there lies part of the problem. I believe most people are inherently good and want to do good (most of the time). Since we are a nation constantly on the go we have precious little time. In order to “do good” we often give money. So where do we give? All too often to the squeaky wheel that is perceived to be a “good cause”.

It’s all in the marketing. Make the thing you’re trying to push “look” like a worthy cause and parade it all over, then the money will flow in. This will in turn allow a greater marketing ploy until you have an large powerful international organization with lots of people to employ who will study the supposed problem or administer funds to the “needy”. Being good and conscious people we believe that of the people we’re giving money to. Waaaayyyyyy too often the opposite is true.

I’ve seen so many situations of lies and theft related to “donations” that I’ve stopped giving to most. My money and time are selectively given and ONLY when I’m personally knowledgeable of the person or group I’m given to. It is no longer “the right thing to do” just to give money and hope that the “right people” get the help they need.
How much money was collected for when the World Trade Center collapsed? Guess who got that money? Much of it still sits in limbo or in the hands of individuals not affected by this tragedy. One of the BIGGEST con jobs ever is the American Cancer Society (ACS). Certainly many people are devastated by this disease either directly or indirectly and the problem continues to get worse. Guess how much money is donated to this organization? The figure is staggering –it’s in the billions of dollars. And what happens to this money? For every $1 spent on direct service, approximately $6.40 is spent on compensation and overhead. Salaries and fringe benefits are by far the largest single budget items, a surprising fact in light of the characterization of the appeals, which stress an urgent and critical need for donations to provide cancer services and the fact that this is a NON-PROFIT organization. Nationally, only 16 percent or less of all money raised is spent on direct services to cancer victims, like driving cancer patients from the hospital after chemotherapy and providing pain medication. And worse than that… there are numerous cancer treatments that have been found to be highly effective but are suppressed by the ACS. Why do you think that would be? What would happen if the incidents of cancer started to drop significantly do to an alternative treatment? Whose jobs would be in jeopardy? Like they say, follow the money.
Several times a year I watch a commercial of a man who is soliciting money for the poor 3rd world children, certainly a worthy cause. And how could you say no to a sad puppy dog like face of a child? What’s not told is that over 80% of the money collected goes right into his own pocket. And what of the people he purports to help. They actually know what he’s doing and allow this to continue. Why? Because with his involvement they still get the other 20% that would not even exist if this person were not involved.

Be diligent with who you donate to else you become a part of the problem not a solution.

I disagree with Mr. Andresen's statement that it's meaningless to talk about a global temperature for earth.

Let's say that there are 10,000 locations on the globe, evenly spaced, that we measure the temperature. We can calculate the average of these temperatures for each point in time, giving us a de facto "global temperature". If the average shows a (long term) increase isn't the earth's temperature rising?

What if by some small chance you are wrong and global warming is indeed a real problem partially brought on by man made pollution?
Would it still be wrong?

It appears to me that the scientific community is quite skeptical of the GW of the political moonbats claiming to be scientists. Maybe Al can start working on something superior to his internet invention! What is even more amazing is the percentage of the population that is so naive and gullible to his politics dressed up as science.

Hopefully Al will receive hardball questions Wednesday. Expect evasive non answers totally unrelated to the actual question. And expect moonbat MSM coverage for the science deniers.

“Would it still be wrong?” Lomstradamus

You propose an “IF” I’m guessing as a way to garner support. Even if someone says “yes – I believe you could be correct” you still need 2 things.
1.) Details and facts that could withstand reasonable scrutiny (as opposed to: hurry the sky is falling and if you don’t trust in what I say you’ll loose money or your job (and the world will end)), and
2.) Sound proposals to deal with agreed on problem.

Since we don’t even have an “agreed on problem” we certainly can’t begin to deal with solutions (without the potential of as many or more negative reactions to the problem than we already have).

But please don’t take this response to knock the opposition and claim “they” don’t believe in saving the environment or helping humanity. I think you’ve already seen most people understand the benefits of a clean environment, clean air and water, recycling and higher efficiency with newer technology and so on.

For those of us who’ve been around for a while and have been paying attention, there are new problems that we’re “AWARE” of everyday. Do you think they started with your awareness? Are you familiar with the cause and effect equation such that you have a thorough, methodical, painstakingly meticulous understanding of both side of “what caused the situation” AND just as important the “effects of each and every change” suggested?

What do you propose we do?

(:>0) "EXTRA, EXTRA - READ ALL ABOUT IT..."

u 2 can become "carbon neutral" even while ur "carbon footprint" remains as big as sasquatch.

money talks...& only the wackos walk!

"Another Inconvenient Truth
Behind the feel-good hype of carbon offsets, some of the deals don't deliver"
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_13/b4027057.htm

(:>0)"psst - no wonder gore keeps a straight face.

Lom,

Here's an interesting article that gives a little perspective as to why your question is largely irrelevant.

Man-made climate change is, of course, real, and constitutes a serious problem. Yet the current cut-emissions-now-before-it-is-too-late mindset neglects the fact that the world has no sensible short-term solutions.

This seems to be why we focus on feel-good approaches like the Kyoto Protocol. Yet the agreement's fundamental problem has always been that it is simultaneously impossibly ambitious, environmentally inconsequential, and inordinately expensive. It required such big reductions that only few countries could live up to it.

Some countries, like the United States and Australia, chose to opt out of its stringent demands; others, like Canada, Japan, and a raft of European states, pay lip service to its requirements, but will essentially miss its targets. Yet, even if everyone had participated and continued to stick to Kyoto's ever more stringent commitments, it would have had virtually no environmental effect: The treaty's effect on temperature would not have been measurable by mid-century and would only have postponed warming by five years in the 21st century. Nonetheless, the cost would have been anything but trivial - an estimated $180 billion per year.

With the EU's high-pitched rhetoric, you would be forgiven for believing that it has now single-handedly taken the major step toward solving the problem. Barroso called the agreement "historic." British Prime Minister Tony Blair extolled its "groundbreaking, bold, ambitious targets." German Chancellor Angela Merkel even ventured that Europe's promises could "avoid what could well be a human calamity."

But nobody sees fit to reveal the agreement's dirty little secret: It will do next to no good - and again at very high cost. According to one well-established and peer-reviewed model, the effect of the EU cutting emissions by 20 percent will postpone warming in the 21st century by just two years, yet the cost will be about $90 billion annually. It will be costly, because Europe is a costly place to cut carbon-dioxide, and it will be inconsequential, because the EU will account for only about 6 percent of all emissions in the 21st century. So the new treaty will be an even less efficient use of our resources than the old Kyoto Protocol. (emphasis -mine)

Now if you want to come back and discuss practical steps to improving life on this planet, there are a number of us who welcome the discussion. If your solution, like Willem van Orange, is carbon taxes, well, then save your breath.

CW,

Yeah, that's right - don't answer the objection, just attack the messenger...

Yet CW...If the message comes from someone who gets substantial monetary grants regarding GW theory, or financially involved with companies which deal in 'carbon offsets', we should take it at face value?

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature.

So, Bjarne Andresen doesn't believe in fever as well? Body temperature is measured locally (in most cases only in one location and not in several locations!), therefore there is no such thing as a ‘body temperature’: parts of your body are colder (for instance the skin) than other parts of the body (the intestines). Therefore you can't conclude you have fever.

Hermie:

The GW crowd has accepted the theories and the supposed causes, as those in a cult have accepted the 'facts'.

Compare the cult of GW with any other cult: The leaders make the 'faithful' toil in the fields and make all the 'sacrifices', while they live in luxury (Like Gore, his mansions and private jets).

Mark,

why do you constantly substitute politics, ideology or a bit article in a newpaper for information on a scientific issue?

The idea is simple- a net increase in energy forcing will causing thermodynamic changes aka "Global warming" which will manifeast as climate change.

The rather ridiculus thing about your posts is you state "the climate is complex and we have much to learn" yet you ignore the current understanding that delve into the complexities.

You then violate your own criticism by relying on a news release quote from a single source to dismiss current understanding

Mark,
If you are going to discuss science then start discussing science. But if you are going to continue to pretend to discuss science and discuss ideology instead at least be honest about what you are doing

What is that? Our climate is complex? Gee, who would have thought that? I thought that Al Gore had rock-solid, consensus science which demonstrated global warming as clearly as a bit of Euclidian geometry....could it be that things aren't as simple and straightfoward as our global warming enthusiasts assert? Could it be that we still have much to learn about our climate before we can start making predictions of what the temperature will be 100 years from now?

Strawmans, each and everyone of them. Climatologists have explained to you that climate is complex, climatologists have explained to you that climate is not simple or straightforward. It's your ignorance that's on display when you claim that GW can't exist because it can still get cold in the Arctic like you did a couple of days ago, or because a conference was canceled because of bad weather a couple of months ago.

Spooks solution is ‘we're doomed anyway so doing nothing is the best solution’.

Spook is retired, I guess he thinks it will not impact his life anymore so who cares.

What is that? Our climate is complex? Gee, who would have thought that? I thought that Al Gore had rock-solid, consensus science which demonstrated global warming as clearly as a bit of Euclidian geometry....could it be that things aren't as simple and straightfoward as our global warming enthusiasts assert?

I can't see how you can be for the war in Iraq and against fixing the environment. The political and religious situation there was and is also very complex, and it turns out fixing it wasn't as simple is going in there and taking out one guy. It also turns out to be prohibitively expensive, just like trying to fix the environment (plus lots of dead people). Yet to you pro-war types, the difficulty and complexity of the problem to be solved is no discouragement; you call suggestions to get out cowardly.

I submit to you that your running from trying to fix the environment because "it's complex and hard" is equally cowardly. We should try our best anyways.

And the argument that we don't know for 100% certainty that GW is happening is handily beaten by Bush's own statement to get us into the Iraq war: "we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." How bad would it have to get before you accepted "final proof" that GW exists, and don't you think it would be even more prohibitively expensive and difficult to fix then?

The consensus that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the USA was certainly less than that that the Earth is warming, and the consequences of the both are unacceptable. Therefore we should be trying our best to solve both. Whether we are to blame for GW or not is irrelevant (we as a species would probably try to remove incoming, mass-extinction meteorite impacts, despite the fact that the meteorites are not our fault).

Spook's solution is ‘we're doomed anyway so doing nothing is the best solution’.

You're putting word in my mouth, Willem. I was citing from an article that starts out with: Man-made climate change is, of course, real, and constitutes a serious problem.

And I ended it with: Now if you want to come back and discuss practical steps to improving life on this planet, there are a number of us who welcome the discussion.

Does that sound like I want to do nothing, or did the fact that I made light of your solution of a carbon tax blind your reading comprehension?

I'm sorry, Willem; I was too kind in my previous post. Only an idiot could read the article I referenced and then reply as you did.

RS,
The funny thing is, he just got done attacking Mark for building straw men, then he does the same thing with you.
Willem,
If temperature is global and can be measured locally, then why isn't the climate changing in Antarctica? That is, in the human body measuring locally tends to give something of an accurate measure. But if it didn't, doctors wouldn't (I hope) continue to measure locally just because in some other discipline measuring locally was accurate. Your metaphor obviously doesn't fit.

oh dear lord Mark - you really out do yourself.

- along with the people on the site that you produce. Does it actually say anything about discrediting global warming?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! All he says is
1) there is no unique way to measure the temperature on the earth - JUST THE WAY THERE IS NO UNIQUE WAY TO MEASURE THE TEMPERATURE OF ANYTHING WITH ANY FINITE SIZE. Since it will be of course - slightly different from place to place.

2) explains the difference between basic
averaging methods (you know arithmetic, mode, median, geometric)

3)
"What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth."

So yes - I completely agree. There are different ways to average numbers and you need a way to decide which one is best when trying to calculate the average relevant to this temperature. And there is no unique way to define this.

HOWEVER, I IMPLORE YOU TO TELL COME UP WITH A METHOD AVERAGING _ JUSTIFY ITS USE _ AND COME TO ANY CONCLUSION YOURSELF...

Please..

If the planet is warming, then please explain why the poles are not. Every graph I've seen has shown the poles to be stable, and in some years within the past five decades has actually dropped.

It appears the GW kooks are cherry-pickin their way to their fifteen minutes of fame.

Personally, I predict the Simpson Effect.

Does that sound like I want to do nothing, or did the fact that I made light of your solution of a carbon tax blind your reading comprehension?

Yes, it does sound like you want to do nothing. And yes, you tried to make light of carbon taxes as one of the measures to help combating GW but you have never given any reasoning or argument for why it should be taken lightly. That's disingenious. So tell me, why should I take you serious?

The article you quoted (from Bjorn Lomborg BTW) only makes claims but never gives any reasoning or argument for those claims. Tell me, why should I take it serious?

Yes, it does sound like you want to do nothing.

I guess you just haven't been around (B4B) long enough or often enough to realize that Ricorun and I have been at the forefront of suggesting a variety of alternative energy solutions and linking to a number of articles about a multitude of innovative technologies, all of which would have a positive effect on CO2 emissions. But I suspect that if your main solution is a carbon tax, then discussing other possibilities is probably a waste of time.

So tell me, why should I take you serious?

I don't give a rat's ass whether or not you take me seriously. If you rate me at zero credibility, then that makes us even. If a carbon tax is your one trick pony, then you really have nothing to add to the discussion.

The article you quoted (from Bjorn Lomborg BTW) only makes claims but never gives any reasoning or argument for those claims.

Then you need to read more. The article only reinforces what I've read in any number of articles.

I'll vouch for Spook on that point -- he's not interested in doing nothing. I'm reasonably sure I am at this point more inclined than he to believe that AGW is a significant problem, but I think we both agree that there are other considerations which converge on the conclusion that it would be a very good idea to find viable, preferably clean, alternatives that will allow us to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. I think we're both getting tired of having our economy held hostage by various sheiks and Hugo-flakes.

I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, Spook.

Personally, I'm not inclined to take anything completely off the table. Not conservation efforts, not incentives for alternative energy sources, or some kind of carbon cap and trade program, or even a carbon tax if it is structured in such a way as to speed the development of other alternatives. But I'm not so naive as to believe that any approach to any proposed element in the overall equation is likely to be equally effective. It depends on how it's implemented. And that, among other things, is likely to be influenced by how many fingers are in the pie and how big the fingers are, if you know what I mean.

Having said that, though, I'd be hard to convince that a carbon tax would be a good idea. Something like that just cries out for abuse -- kinda like ever other form of tax, lol! And it would be even worse if it were applied internationally. What I would very much prefer to see is a greater emphasis on the stimulation of clean (carbon neutral or carbon negative) alternative energy sources that are scalable, adaptable from older technologies and/or adaptable to new techniques as they come on line, widely deployable, ultimately cost-effective, and reasonably predictable.

That's not too much to ask now, is it? lol! Actually, I don't think it is. I think there are technologies out there possessing at least most of the aforementioned qualifications, and which hold a great deal of promise in the not too distant future. And to the extent that they are cost-effective and widely deployable, they could be made available to developing countries, thus allowing them to skip the entire fossil fuel era in their development.

I like the way Michael Crichton puts global warming into perspective:

"Everyday 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty. There are, a third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the future than pay attention to what’s going on now. I think that's unacceptable. I think that’s really a disgrace."

I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, Spook.

Nope, Rico, you've got it about right; same with the rest of your post, but, as usual, all you'll get from the resident Lefties is crickets.

Dear Navydad,

why are you asking this?

First of all:
Over the past several decades, temperatures in the Arctic have increased at twice the rate of average global temperatures. Meanwhile, sea and land ice in the Arctic and parts of Antarctica have been shrinking at a surprising and ever-growing rate, and permafrost is thawing across the Arctic.

Secondly:
The effects of climate change in most of Antarctica (the South Pole), meanwhile, have not been as dramatic as in the Arctic. There are a few reasons for this. First, Antarctica -- a continent surrounded by ocean -- is more isolated from the rest of the planet than the Arctic is, so its climate patterns are not as easy to disturb.

Finally, researchers think that the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica is counteracting the effects of global warming. Ozone absorbs energy, so removing it cools that layer of the atmosphere

Dear Navydad,

why are you asking this?

First of all:
Over the past several decades, temperatures in the Arctic have increased at twice the rate of average global temperatures. Meanwhile, sea and land ice in the Arctic and parts of Antarctica have been shrinking at a surprising and ever-growing rate, and permafrost is thawing across the Arctic.

Secondly:
The effects of climate change in most of Antarctica (the South Pole), meanwhile, have not been as dramatic as in the Arctic. There are a few reasons for this. First, Antarctica -- a continent surrounded by ocean -- is more isolated from the rest of the planet than the Arctic is, so its climate patterns are not as easy to disturb.

Finally, researchers think that the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica is counteracting the effects of global warming. Ozone absorbs energy, so removing it cools that layer of the atmosphere

If the planet is warming, then please explain why the poles are not.

I don't know how many poles you've got but the temperatures across the Arctic have risen 2 to 7 degrees F. in recent decades.

The coastline of Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula are warming. The central and southern parts of the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed by nearly 3°C. Only in the centre of Antarctica do we see cooling at the moment. Climate models suggest that the centre will show a warming trend after 2025.

For an explanation of that cooling centre: the warmer temperatures in the surrounding ocean have produced more precipitation in the continent’s interior, and this increased snowfall has cooled the high-altitude region around the pole.
Also, ozone in the Earth’s stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet radiation, and absorbing this energy warms the stratosphere. Loss of UV-absorbing ozone may have cooled the stratosphere and strengthened the polar vortex, a pattern of spinning winds around the South Pole. The vortex acts like an atmospheric barrier, preventing warmer, coastal air from moving in to the continent’s interior. A stronger polar vortex might explain the cooling trend in the interior of Antarctica.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257

Ricorun

I'll vouch for Spook on that point -- he's not interested in doing nothing.

I'll take your word for it.

Maybe you (or Spook himself) can also explain why his trackrecord consists of always debating and arguing with ‘leftists’ - as he likes to call them - who argue that GW is a real and imminent danger? Never with posters who can post the most ridiculous arguments which are all over the map? One day claiming there is no GW, the next day argueing there is GW but not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses and the third day claiming it is actually cooling. On and on and on. You know the drill.

Re: carbon tax. That something can be abused is not an argument in my opinion. Any scheme that involves money is potentially prone to abuse.
With carbon tax you have at one side the ability to generate funds for R$D and at the other side reward ‘good behaviour’.

Willem,
"If the whole of Antarctica were divided into a grid, said Walsh, about 60 to 70 percent of the squares would reveal a cooling trend, while warming would be seen in the other 30 to 40 percent of the overall area. 'So there's a slight net cooling for the entire continent,' Walsh said....
"'You can't expect an area three times the size of Australia to behave the same way throughout,' said Peck, a co-author of the new study on the Signey Island lakes."
(From National Geographic Today regarding a 1/25/02 publication in the journal Science.)

"The cooling isn't limited to the Dry Valleys' lakes. A record of all Antarctic temperatures compiled by Doran and his colleagues shows an overall cooling of the continent since 1966, particularly during the summer and autumn months.
Doran attributes the cooling to unusually sunny and less stormy weather patterns. Usually, storminess helps warm parts of Antarctica by creating winds like the warm chinooks that flow off the high plateaus of the American West."
(From NPR, 1/21/02, regarding a publication in Nature.)

So you're telling me that it's getting colder because there's more precipitation, but this researcher says more precipitation warms rather than cools. So we have completely different interpretations of the same set of facts. The researcher above describes how we can't expect even an area the size of Antarctica to have a consistent climate, which fuels the original post's premise about how temperatures are local, not global. And the other possible explanation listed by Earth Observatory regarding ozone doesn't fit either, because if there were cooling in the stratosphere because of decreased ozone, then the temperature of the air above Antarctica would be cooler, and it's in fact warmer while the surface has grown cooler. Of course this suggest a greater degree of individual differences among temperature and climate trends, back to the original premise.

Willem, I can't speak for Spook on the topic, but this is how I see it: For starters, I think too often people on both sides tend to confuse the opinions and behavior of advocates on one side or the other with the underlying science. And the more extreme the better in that regard. People tend to like snowplows -- i.e., simplifying a complicated issue into an easy to understand either/or, black/white, with us/against us kind of scenario. And I think you will agree that climate science is a particularly complex issue. It makes my head spin, that's for sure. Moreover, it becomes even more intractable by virtue of the fact that even if someone (me, for example) wanted to read the original studies and assess them on their own merits, you (I) can't, unless we're inclined to spend a small fortune. Most of them are sequestered behind a subscription firewall.

I have a fairly extensive background in science. My specific training is in neuroscience, and more specifically in brain/behavior relationships. But, as it turned out, it wasn't a very specific specialty at all. It forced me to familiarize myself with a lot of statistics, which has proven useful in a variety of ways. I know quite a bit about information flow in complex networks, and it doesn't much matter what kind of network it is. The fundamentals are all the same -- more or less anyway. The approaches are different in the stochastic and analog domains, as well as the interactions between the two. But be it neural networks, or economic theory, or topographical analysis, or robotics, or data mining, or just following a particle through multidimensional space, the hard part in any given application is assessing how good the input is. At least for me. Because that's very application-specific.

I said all that to say this: on the topic of climate science, I've read a lot, but not enough. Nonetheless, I figure I'm better equipped than most to absorb more details than most. But even now I find myself buffetting between thinking "this is a really big deal" on the one hand and "maybe we can accommodate" on the other, depending upon whatever tree is in front of the forest at the moment. So no, I don't fault Spook for his apparent inconsistencies at all. This is a very difficult topic, and I know for a fact that he's spent a lot of time and effort in trying to understand it. Further, if it weren't for him I wouldn't have spent any time to understand it myself.

But now that we're on the subject, let me ask you this -- how truly interested are you in discussing solutions? That goes for neologizer as well -- at various times and in various ways I've approached the subject with him. But as far as I can tell, he hasn't even intimated a reply. How about you?

I hate to remain the cynic, Rico, but all I hear is crickets. Thanks for the kind words, BTW.

I think a large part of the problem with this debate, discussion, or whatever you want to call it, is that many of the debaters can't see the forest for the trees, and that applies to people on both sides. There are not enough people thinking outside the box on this, and a carbon tax, just like more spending on education, is definitely not thinking outside the box. For starters, I can see the worst offenders either ignoring it or finding ways around it.

Perhaps Willem is right when he says: Maybe you (or Spook himself) can also explain why his track record consists of always debating and arguing with ‘leftists’ - as he likes to call them - who argue that GW is a real and imminent danger? Never with posters who can post the most ridiculous arguments which are all over the map? There's really no point in arguing with someone who's thinks the whole issue is a hoax (a mindset that is rapidly diminishing anyway), just as there's no point in arguing with someone who thinks we are 10 years from the point of no return, so we must do something NOW (but never advances any practical solutions).

My biggest problem is, in terms of the science, I started way behind the curve. Unlike you, I don't have a math or science background. My college degree is in Business Administration, and my military background was in signals intelligence. I'm not too old to learn some basics, but I'm too old to go back to school and get a physics degree.

One of the things that got me interested, early on, in this topic, was a couple years ago when the debate started to get really heated (pun intended). I began my own research efforts by reading links to sites and articles provided by the alarmist crowd (and, I'm sorry, Willem, but they are mostly Leftists). Very early on it became obvious that there was a great deal of disagreement even among those who believe wholeheartedly that Man is the chief culprit. That led me to try to find out why there was disagreement which, in turn, led to a great deal of skepticism on the whole issue. That skepticism was, in turn, fueled by the fact that I'm just not a "gloom and doom" person. My wife describes me as the eternal optimist. I have a difficult time believing that technology isn't going to solve this problem; it just isn't going to do it in 10 years. But, based on everything I've read, (and you and I have read many of the same articles), the next 10 years is going to see an explosion in environmentally friendly innovations. Perhaps Willem, you can explain to me why your side doesn't seem to want to discuss solutions (other than a tax).

Neo
Neo....noticed you accidentally posted twice.

Anyway, here's my thought on the pole climate issue. The latest report on sea level trends by the "United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" said such melting could take a millennium or more. But because of a lack of long-term measurements and poor understanding of the physics of ice, that analysis largely excluded hints of an accelerating flow of ice and melted water from Greenland into the seas.

So, I'm having trouble understanding why we should panic, if the most sensitive areas of the planet are being affected the least. Doesn't this sound a bit odd that even the UN panel admits that the poles are least/slowest to be affected??

If we're all gonna die, according to Algore and the far left kooks, then why spread fear when the term "if" is the only constant yet available??

Lefty environmentalist wackos: If global warming is due to man's influence, please explain why the temperatures on Mars are rising just as they are on earth?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Navydad,

Icecaps and significatn sealevel rise are long term (past our generation) so let's forget about that for the time being.

If you cut to the chase here's the reason we need to act now

1) tippping point/ positive feedbacks. If the biomass locked up in frozen tundras thaw - that an enormous carbon sink lost. Lower reflectivity from less artic sea ice and you lose another cooling mechanism ...etc

2) Climate change - what is going to happen in the next 20-40 years. For example hotter drier summers in the midwest(think draught). Warmer ocean temps for longer periods (think hurricanes). Melting seaice in the artic changes the salinity of the ocean and alters circulation paterns.

3)How are natural resources going to be effected. Think about how agriculture, marine life ecosystems or other things like forests, fresh water recharge are going to be altered with a climate change. For example already heat sensitive coral is dying in the tropics. Glaciers, whose runoff supplies millions with fresh water, are disappearing (killamanjaro's snowcaps will be gone in 20 years)

Phnx,

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars. These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/#more-192

Here's the journal article that puts that to rest

"Albedo of the south pole on Mars determined by topographic forcing of atmosphere dynamics"

....Here we present observations and climate modelling that indicate the south pole of Mars is characterized by two distinct regional climates that are the result of dynamical forcing by the largest southern impact basins, Argyre and Hellas....
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7039/abs/nature03561.html

Neo,

Each of your points are speculative at best and really not worth responding to, no disrespect, but if you insist, I will. But you won't like the response, especially after I research each point and respond with both points of view, it's simply my gig, to research these issues as deep as possible, without discounting either position until I'm convinced one way or another.

Unfortunately for the pro GW side, the house of cards is collapsing as the public, who has access to the internet, performs their own, non-scientic research and when they weigh the facts, which are few, the issue is becoming more balanced and with guys like Algore spewing his paid rhetoric in front of a Dem dominated panel, it shows the public just how skewed the issue is.

BTW, it was an ass kissing luv fest, and even you'd agree with that assessment.

Neo,

Thanks, even if the theory postulated in the article you refer to is true, how does that explain the increasing temps that have been observed On Jupiter, its moons and as far away as Pluto?

In addition, there is evidence that the South Pole is becoming colder.

I looking forward to your next contorted theory as to how all of this supports the idea that man is responsible for global warming.

neo

In rebutal of your post please read:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/10/dutch-journalism-award-kyoto-is-junk_06.html

For those of you who don't want to read the whole article I submit the following:

"What's equally striking is that the team of ten "RealClimate" scientists who claim that they understand the climate is not able to write anything about the issue of the Martian global warming. Instead, they invite a "guest blogger" who is himself a binary star specialist i.e. who has professionally nothing to do with the climate models whatsoever. The very same people whose only argument against the scientific articles that they find inconvenient is their statement that the author is not their colleague (and moreover, may be paid by ExxonMobil, right?) suddenly have to rely on the opinion of an astrophysicist who studies binary stars.

Well, when he writes things that they find useful for their ideology, suddenly it does not matter that he is a climate layman. Of course that at the end, I can't blame S.S. for his particular opinion. It is the RC team who should be blamed for their selective process of choosing the "convenient opinions".

It's completely obvious that if they had some terrestrial climate models whose conclusions could be trusted, they could just change a couple of parameters, make a few improvements, and they could also predict the Martian climate, at least approximately. (NASA probably has the best Martian climate models in the world but they are not giving quite the right results yet.) The fact that they can't tell you anything about it and that they must rely on the opinion on a guest non-specialist is telling your something, isn't it?

If someone claims that he understands the terrestrial climate perfectly enough so that he can predict the future in 2050 including the variations, but simultaneously has no idea at all what may be happening on Mars, then it's analogous to a "nuclear physicist" who tells you that she understands everything about the Lithium nucleus - and she can predict the new excited levels - but has no idea about the Helium nucleus. In both cases, the relevant physics is based on universal effects."

So much for your experts and their dismissal of Martian warming.

Didn't see it. I don't really care for or about Al Gore. I have mixed feelings about his involvement. He's raised the level of public debate over the issue but also brought a political facade to a scientific issue.

Its good that you state you research with an open mind. Keep one additional thing in mind though. There is a distinct difference in web pages that discuss the issues and web pages that discuss the science.

Case in point for skeptics...Mars global warming. I'm sure you can find plenty of web pages that discuss this however you can't find any science that supports it because it doesn't exist.

Case in point for the science. Its clear that we put additional CO2 into the atmosphere, we can measure it we can measure how much additional solar energy it will absorb. Its almost indisputible that we have created an imbalance in energy absorbtion in the atmosphere.

Question is where is that energy going... So far there is very good evidence its manifesting as temperature. If you find another in your research please pass it on because so far I haven't seen another sink

"He's raised the level of public debate over the issue but also brought a political facade to a scientific issue."

And the panic that is derived from his "chicken little" behavior??

Neo, we've all been thru this over the past 30-40 years, numerous times indeed, with "the sky is falling" routine and honestly, I don't give a rat's ass about analysis until it provides cold hard facts. But thanks for the dialogue...it's always fun!!

By nature, I'm a skeptic, but I've tried to study the AGW arguments with an open mind. CO2 is 0.0314% of our atmosphere. Supposedly, an increase to 0.034% will cause hell on earth. Based on this, it seems like CO2 has incredible power. If tiny percentage changes in our atmospheric mix can cause this much trouble, then we got big problems, folks. Imagine the horror if Nitrogen (without human help) changes from 78.084% to 78.064%. I can't bear the thought.