Here's a quote from former EPA director and Bush appointee Christine Todd Whitman...

"Policymakers need to take a precautionary approach to environmental protection...We must acknowledge that uncertainty is inherent in managing natural resources, recognize it is usually easier to prevent environmental damage than to repair it later, and shift the burden of proof away from those advocating protection toward those proposing an action that may be harmful."

Now she also towed the Bush party line on Climate Change but it's an interesting thought nonetheless. The question is then - Will we ever have absolute certainty on climate change, and should a lack of certainty prevent us from implementing precautionary measures?

Eric,

Whitman had it wrong - we need to put the burden of proof on both:

If you wish to do something to alter the natural environment, you must show that it will do no net harm.

If you wish to protect something, you must show that it will have a net benefit.

Mark,

So is there no room for precaution?

Here's an article on Professor Lindzen:

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html

About the global warming issue, I would ask Mark if he thinks sea levels are rising. I was wondering myself because I have heard references to it in the media. So I went to Wikipedia.

"From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr. Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr;[1] since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise about 3 mm/yr.[2]"

If this is true, this could have a devastating impact of low-lying countries like Bangladesh. Not only flooding, but salt water can ruin agriculture even after it has receded.

My question again: are sea levels rising at a rate that threatens coastal communties? I'd like to know what others think, especially those who believe global warming is nonsense.

Mark,

Lindzen recieved $2500 a day from oil and coal interests for his services. His article "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.1 Lindzen has lectured at numerous Cooler Heads Coalition meetings. The Cooler Heads Coalition is funded by CEI which is in turn funded by Exxon Mobil. He has also given talks for the George C. Marshall Institute which is also funded by Exxon Mobil. His connections to the oil, coal, and even tobacco industry are apparently rather extensive(see list). However Richard Lindzen claims he is currently not recieving any handouts from oil companies.

a nice list for you
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/comment.html?entrynum=36&tstamp=200606

No consensus??

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

but you would rather listen to a guy who wouldn't put his money where is mouth is?

He claimed to be willing to accept bets on the future climate during an interview with Reason magazine. Reason printed “Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now.” When Annan approached him and tried to accept the bet Lindzen seemed to carry a different tune. The following is from James Annan’s personal website:

“Richard Lindzen will indeed accept a bet - but only if offered odds of 50:1 in his favour! He actually started out quoting 100:1 - but came down to 50:1 in what he described as a special favour to me. If the temperatures went down, I was to hand over $10,000, but in the event of a rise, I'd get a whopping $200. That's worth around
$8 per year on my pension. Whoop-de-doo.” 1, 2, 3

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

neo,

Ah, but if it is a sure thing, then it is $800 in the bank...

And nice job of attacking the messenger...but as he is claiming that he hasn't, you'll have to come pretty close to a cancelled check from an energy company to Lindzen before I'll doubt his assertion about himself.

Nick,

I have no idea - but for the sake of argument, lets say that ocean levels are rising 3mm per year.

A great deal of Bangladesh is 10 meters above sea level (more of it is about 300 meters, but lets not worry about those areas for now). At 3 mm per year, it will take 3.3 years for sea levels to rise one centimeter. It will then take 100 times that long for the water to rise a full meter...so, 330 years. And to get to that 10 meters, 3,300 years...

Not something I'm terribly worried about...even if you accelerate it, I can't see Banlgladesh getting under water in less than half a millenium...I'm sure we can work something out by then.

Let's talk about certainty for a minute.

I find it telling that Professor Lindzen makes the claim that we only know for certain that the climate is going to change, but not how-- and that therefore claims about how the climate is going to change are not scientific. But this is based on the false premise that science is in the business of delivering certain predictions. It isn't. Science is in the business of offering reliable predictions, and it does that very well. Scientific predictions are the best kind of predictions we have-- but since we are eminently fallible creatures with relatively modest tools for getting at the truth, we have to expect that even our best efforts will sometimes go awry. That's why science is always a process, never a product. But for the rest of us, what science offers up as testimony at any given moment is the most rational advisement we can take. The idea that Lindzen advances-- that only if our climate models were certain could we claim some sort of scientific mandate for action-- is based on a false and irrational picture of the nature of science. Of course Lindzen understands, from a practical point of view, what it takes to do good science-- but even a good scientist can make a bad argument, and reach a false conclusion. Lindzen is no exception.

It wouldn't matter, of course, if Lindzen was at the top of the payroll of every major oil company in the world, because the question is ultimately not whether Lindzen or any other individual is a credible advisor on global warming. I'm sure for any spokesman we global warming believers named, plenty of considerations could be brought to bear to impugn that person's credibility. In either case, it's irrelevant. Lindzen is an established and well-respected climatologist, and any claim he makes should be evaluated on its own merits. But in this case, I'm quite sure that he has not made a very strong case.

Consider the comparison between climate modeling and the local weather forecast. Lindzen tries to make the point that the local weather forecast for a coming week is an unreliable indicator of how the weather will actually turn out to be. But suppose that at the beginning of the week you saw a weather report that predicted torrential rain for Thursday. Assume, for the sake of argument, you aren't able to check the weather again for the remainder of the week but remember the prediction come Thursday morning. Do you suppose you might reach for your umbrella before leaving for work? More importantly-- given what you know-- wouldn't that in fact be the rational thing to do? Obviously the comparison is a stretch in both directions (adapting to global warming is in many respects more costly than reaching for one's umbrella in the morning, and certainly requires more deliberation)-- but the point is, predicting the weather, short-, middle-, and long-term, is a tricky business, and we are only so good at it. But our best predictions are still considerably better than shots in the dark. Indeed, when you leave the specifics out (e.g. whether it will rain at a given date and time, what the precise high temperature will be), we're actually pretty good at predicting coarse weather patterns. And that's what's at stake here.

Of course it is also difficult to know what the consequences of warming overall would be. But there are enough likely positive feedback effects that would reinforce the warming-- and might even cause it to (pardon the pun) snowball-- to raise the specter of concern. A much warmer world, of course, would not be well-suited for much of the life that exists on the planet today, including humans. Lindzen makes a series of rather poor claims on the matter of consequences of global warming, though, in the article quoted. With regard to the possibility of a broader spread of disease, for example, Lindzen claims ill-informedly that the spread of malaria has little do with climate and more to do with poverty and public health policies. But warmer mean temperatures would increase the amount of territory favorable for breeding the mosquitos that carry malaria, which would of course mean that the disease would spread farther afield. At best, this would lead to a greater economic impact, as more countries would have to shoulder the burden of malaria control. In general, the Wikipedia article on the predicted consequences of global warming seems to be fairly well researched. And the picture that it paints, if it does indeed represent reliable data (as we know, always a question with a Wiki), suggests that it is far better to err on the side of caution when it comes to the consequences of warming. Whether the picture is ultimately apocalyptic or not seems quite besides the point, since there seems to be enough good reason to believe the consequences of warming will, on the whole, be adverse and that we are the most significant cause of the trend. The rational course of action, then, is to consider what we might do to alter the present climate trajectory.

Professor Lindzen is indeed a well-credentialed scientist, but the arguments he makes in this article are (as far as they are within my expertise to evaluate) not very good. This suggests a moral. As I said to begin this (long) post, science is in the business of delivering reliable predictions. Predictions are reliable at best because science -- and especially scientists-- are intrinsically fallible. In general, a consensus of scientists is far more reliable than a lone wolf, no matter how apparently smart that loner might be. As a general principle, unless you've got good evidence of your own to contradict the view of the majority, the consensus of scientists is always a more robust and reliable indicator of fact than any one man's opinion. So the skeptics are going to have to produce either much better arguments or a lot more testimonials if they want to prove their point.

Let's talk about certainty for a minute.

I find it telling that Professor Lindzen makes the claim that we only know for certain that the climate is going to change, but not how-- and that therefore claims about how the climate is going to change are not scientific. But this is based on the false premise that science is in the business of delivering certain predictions. It isn't. Science is in the business of offering reliable predictions, and it does that very well. Scientific predictions are the best kind of predictions we have-- but since we are eminently fallible creatures with relatively modest tools for getting at the truth, we have to expect that even our best efforts will sometimes go awry. That's why science is always a process, never a product. But for the rest of us, what science offers up as testimony at any given moment is the most rational advisement we can take. The idea that Lindzen advances-- that only if our climate models were certain could we claim some sort of scientific mandate for action-- is based on a false and irrational picture of the nature of science. Of course Lindzen understands, from a practical point of view, what it takes to do good science-- but even a good scientist can make a bad argument, and reach a false conclusion. Lindzen is no exception.

It wouldn't matter, of course, if Lindzen was at the top of the payroll of every major oil company in the world, because the question is ultimately not whether Lindzen or any other individual is a credible advisor on global warming. I'm sure for any spokesman we global warming believers named, plenty of considerations could be brought to bear to impugn that person's credibility. In either case, it's irrelevant. Lindzen is an established and well-respected climatologist, and any claim he makes should be evaluated on its own merits. But in this case, I'm quite sure that he has not made a very strong case.

Consider the comparison between climate modeling and the local weather forecast. Lindzen tries to make the point that the local weather forecast for a coming week is an unreliable indicator of how the weather will actually turn out to be. But suppose that at the beginning of the week you saw a weather report that predicted torrential rain for Thursday. Assume, for the sake of argument, you aren't able to check the weather again for the remainder of the week but remember the prediction come Thursday morning. Do you suppose you might reach for your umbrella before leaving for work? More importantly-- given what you know-- wouldn't that in fact be the rational thing to do? Obviously the comparison is a stretch in both directions (adapting to global warming is in many respects more costly than reaching for one's umbrella in the morning, and certainly requires more deliberation)-- but the point is, predicting the weather, short-, middle-, and long-term, is a tricky business, and we are only so good at it. But our best predictions are still considerably better than shots in the dark. Indeed, when you leave the specifics out (e.g. whether it will rain at a given date and time, what the precise high temperature will be), we're actually pretty good at predicting coarse weather patterns. And that's what's at stake here.

Of course it is also difficult to know what the consequences of warming overall would be. But there are enough likely positive feedback effects that would reinforce the warming-- and might even cause it to (pardon the pun) snowball-- to raise the specter of concern. A much warmer world, of course, would not be well-suited for much of the life that exists on the planet today, including humans. Lindzen makes a series of rather poor claims on the matter of consequences of global warming, though, in the article quoted. With regard to the possibility of a broader spread of disease, for example, Lindzen claims ill-informedly that the spread of malaria has little do with climate and more to do with poverty and public health policies. But warmer mean temperatures would increase the amount of territory favorable for breeding the mosquitos that carry malaria, which would of course mean that the disease would spread farther afield. At best, this would lead to a greater economic impact, as more countries would have to shoulder the burden of malaria control. In general, the Wikipedia article on the predicted consequences of global warming seems to be fairly well researched. And the picture that it paints, if it does indeed represent reliable data (as we know, always a question with a Wiki), suggests that it is far better to err on the side of caution when it comes to the consequences of warming. Whether the picture is ultimately apocalyptic or not seems quite besides the point, since there seems to be enough good reason to believe the consequences of warming will, on the whole, be adverse and that we are the most significant cause of the trend. The rational course of action, then, is to consider what we might do to alter the present climate trajectory.

Professor Lindzen is indeed a well-credentialed scientist, but the arguments he makes in this article are (as far as they are within my expertise to evaluate) not very good. This suggests a moral. As I said to begin this (long) post, science is in the business of delivering reliable predictions. Predictions are reliable at best because science -- and especially scientists-- are intrinsically fallible. In general, a consensus of scientists is far more reliable than a lone wolf, no matter how apparently smart that loner might be. As a general principle, unless you've got good evidence of your own to contradict the view of the majority, the consensus of scientists is always a more robust and reliable indicator of fact than any one man's opinion. So the skeptics are going to have to produce either much better arguments or a lot more testimonials if they want to prove their point.

Let's get over partisan divides to address this issue. Just because your party says something is the case does NOT mean you can't disagree with them and seek the truth. Global warming is real. Let's work together to make both parties happy, while solving the problem.

Come on guys, please?

ThELefTYFoOL

And nice job of attacking the messenger...

Says the guy who claims that you can discard any source from "the left."

Honestly, Noonan, you just make this entirely too easy. Could you at least try to hide your hypocrisy?

Mark,

Your post stated he never took any money from energy companies... just clarifying.

Bangledash? underwater?

Mark,
climate change - that's the big issue right now climate change (that's what global warming is causing right now). If you don't talk about climate change then you aren't acknowledging the most dire consequence of global warming

But since you brought up ocean levels
In 2001, IPCC's The Third Assessment Report IPCC predicted that by 2100, global warming will lead to a sea level rise of 9 to 88 cm.

Wow neo....9-88cm! That's a hell of span.

I'd sure like to have those odds in Vegas.

If the tolerances for theorm are this loose, than sign me up for any GW grant that you know of, because it's obvious that accuracy doesn't matter.

Does neo know the length of a mm and cm? I have my doubts.

Perhaps some need a lesson on the metric system. 1 inch = 25.4 millimeters. 1 foot = 30.48 centimeters.

Hey navydad

How many corse corrections will the New Horizons probe have to make on its way to Pluto.

What? are engineers so stupid that they don't understand the physics and gravity? How can I trust that my next airline flight to England won't end up in say Iran?

Guess we can't trust the opinion of engineers now either. At this rate soon the only ones left to trust will be preachers and politicians

Even with course corrections New Horizons is heading to Pluto just as humans are causing Earth to warm

BTW
Climate change - most consequential effect of global warming is climate change

Those are cm not mm and yes it is means 2-3 foot sea level rise in the next 100yesra

FYI

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/

And nice job of attacking the messenger...but as he is claiming that he hasn't, you'll have to come pretty close to a cancelled check from an energy company to Lindzen before I'll doubt his assertion about himself.

Why do you trust this guy so much? Do you also need cancelled checks from the vast left-wing eco-conspiracy to disbelieve the majority of scientists who do believe in GW?

I have no problem being skeptical of claims (I tend to be more skeptical of politicians, because they get into it for power, and less skeptical of scientists, becase they get into because they're nerds and geeks in school), but at least apply your skepticism consistently.

I tend to trust scientists, and as much as anybody would like to turn a blind eye, the consensus this time around is pretty strong.

I still don't see why you need to be convinced that GW is an absolute, for sure, 100% thing before you are willing to say that we should try to preemtively fix it. Again, Iraq's possession of WMD's was not an absolute, for sure, 100% thing either, and yet it was OK by you and me that we go in and fix it. What's the difference? Iraqi WMDs and GW are both very very bad, and were probably true, and will cost us hundreds of billions of dollars to fix, both paid for by tax dollars. The only difference is that the war money goes to the military-industrial complex and the GW money would go to the eco-hippie complex.

neologize,

If the source of a research scientist's funding indicates the credibility of the scientific research... you are arguing a losing battle.

There are more companies and a greater amount of dollars being invested into research from companies that will benefit from more stringent controls than there are those from oil, coal companies.

I would like those ow agree with the sscientists just to answer a couple of questions.

1. If all the planets in the are incurring warming, how does this relate to global warming and is there a relationship.

2. Can you provide me a list of 5 items, where scientific projections of future trends proved to be correct or if not correct, how close where the projections.

I don't beleive putting foreign materials into the enviroment is good for the enviroment but I'm also sceptical of the claims fo the science community, which has a history of predictions not being fullfilled.

Hey Neo,

What's the co-effcient of thermal expansion of a bugger from Hitlery's nose if ambient is 60 deg.? Who cares is my point, because no matter how it's twisted or spun, we still do not have accurate facts to detail the effects of GW.

Look, Neo, we can all appreciate that you research your theories and that you truly believe that your argument is better than ours, but there comes a time when one must consider that until all the data is quantified and then qualified, it really doesn't mean a whole lot.

So, instead of trying to challenge everyone in order to make yourself look smarter, try engaging in a way that makes you appear more willing to be engaged. Maybe back off with the numbers and cut-n-paste articles and go with your gut...for once.

BTW, what does your gut say Neo? Does it truly buy GW, or do your left leaning feelings over ride reason?

Really.

neo,

9 to 88 centimeters? NINE TO EIGHTY EIGHT????? What kind of absolutely worthless prediction has a margin of error of nearly 10 times? Please don't tell me that this is the sort of thing your using to justify your views? I predict the Chargers will score between three and thirty points in their first game...will you call me a football genius if I'm right?

As for climate change - it has changed before, it will change again...in order for you to convince me that we need massive change, you'll have to come up with some really bad, pending catastrophe...sea level rise has been used as one of the major selling points of "we gotta change now" in the global warming debate...and the sea level rise can be as little as three inches, by your own statement.

rng,

I remain unconvinced of three things:

1. That human agency is the primary culprit in GW.

2. That we can, by our own actions, halt or reverse GW.

3. That GW will be a net harm to the overall environment.

Once those three concerns are cleared up, then we'll see what I'm willing to advocate.

Hey Noonan! Quit stealing my assertions about Neo's figures....LOL!

Mark,

I'm honest about the data-it is what it is. You obviously seek out the few dozen or more skeptics out there (ie lindzen) and quote them.

OK you may not have seen this on your last GW post so I'll re-post it and then I'd like your opinon. Remember this is from the Bush administration....

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), which includes the World Data Center for Atmospheric Trace Gases, has served as the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) since 1982

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q7

Q:What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?

A:Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.....

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q7

Hope that answers your question about anthropogenic CO2 but if not take a look here

US greenhouse gas emissions (EPA)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/06ES.pdf

Navydad,

Any idea how much global warming and icemelting it takes to raise the sea levels by 9cm?

How about 50cm?

No?

I'll give you a hint somewhere between alot and a hell of alot. Any idea about the corrsponding climate change? I'm guessing again a big NO?

If you're argueing a 9cm versus 50cm sea level rise then I guess you don't deny global warming anymore (so why quote Lindzen then?)

Neo
You know that old saying about arguing with a fool?

Actually

After thinking about it I’ll put the 9-88cm prediction in ideological perspective since that may be easier for you to grasp

If the left wing eco-nuts suddenly come to absolute power and stop all greenhouse gas emissions today in 100 years the seas will stillhave risen 9cm (do to already accumulated greenhouse gases)

If global warming doubters like yourself come to absolute power and emission trends continue in 100 years the seas will rise by 3 feet

see you later
Neo

First of all Neo...I've never doubted the climate change, so back off!

Secondly, everything you've posted thus far only supports your position and you discount anyone elses position by throwing more junk science at the argument.

The argument with me is NOT that GW exists, it's HOW we're arriving at the phenom and whether or not it's worth worrying about!!
I could easily go searching for the numbers all the while brushing up on my physics...but I care not to as it doesn't prove diddly squat nor does it give us a fix.

So answer the bugger question and I'll answer yours.

Can't answer it...well look up Young's modulus and maybe you'll find the answer there...if you can perform a modulus of elasticity. You can, can't you? You seem to be quite the engineero-deluxe these days with your so-called facts and figures. I on the other hand, post in between design and development of new products so I don't always have time to go in depth. I have better things to do other than check your numbers and such.

It's the sun...

Navydad,
Unlike many of the posters you have a more rational approach to your skepticism which I respect so I take back the comment about the ideology. The way I see it with a rational approach the facts and data lead to a clearer conclusion then many admit.

I basically have to read Science and Nature for work and for years now there have been study after study coming out that show the GW problem is becoming a brutual one. I realize few people are up on what's going on in the journals and things are just starting to play out in the public arena. But its a little frustrating when you can seeing the scientific debate has moved on but the public one is still occuring

I understand about the work thing I've been posting this as an intectual exercise because I've doing monkey work for a few weeks but thats changing real soon and I won't be around here

Anyway I've enjoyed debating with you
Neo

When the earth decides to shake us off, it will because of a force much greater than the human population.

When Mt. Pinatuba happened in 1991 Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F), and ozone destruction increased.

Maybe if Al Gore should start traveling by horseback if he were truely serious.

It seem to me that, in light of the lack of evidence assuring a global warming catastrophe, we should not be looking to prevent problems, through draconian environmental policies that will most certainly cause economic hardship on the masses, that may well not exist. Since, any measures that might help, taken to prevent this possible problem, must be severe and massive in scope and which, must be globally enacted to have any positively effect on the root cause of global warming as is now asserted by the UN report, prudent decision making would require that such a problem be known to exist before allocating the resource required, which might be prohibitive in and of themselves, to address a problem of this scope. One must remember that the opportunity cost is and should be a primary consideration. Or to put it another way, just how much of the global economy are you willing to spend on an insurance policy?

It's the Sun!

Baseball game snowed out!...again!...in April!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/photos/0/0bf47d04-80db-4e76-b240-dc670b765d56.html?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Neo,

Any estimate that has a margin of error in a factor of ten is worthless...what is pitiable is that you can't see how different the data would have to be to get 9 or 88 cm...essentially you're dealing with two climates, and as you've only got one, you've got a real problem here.

Neo,

Your wrong, scientic debate hasn't ceased, except by those who choose to ignore other scientific research work.

let's take Patrick Moore (environmentalist), for instance..

Moore calls global warming the "most difficult issue facing the scientific community today in terms of being able to actually predict with any kind of accuracy what's going to happen".[6] While acknowledging that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is caused by human consumption of fossil fuels, he claims that as of 2006, it cannot be fully proven as the exclusive reason the Earth has been warming since 1980.[citation needed] He stresses that it is scientific evidence, not consensus opinion, that would prove or disprove this relation."

I'm sure you don't have to google to find out who
Patrick Moore is.. you should know him, from being so enviormentally informed.. but just in case he is one of the founding members of so little know group called Greenpeace.

or maybe Paul Reiter
""A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious 'science' is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of 'experts.' I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a 'consensus of the world's top scientists' on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse"

How about Tad Murty
expert on tsunamis. He is the former president of the Tsunami Society. He is an adjunct professor of Civil Engineering at University of Ottawa | link Murty has a a PhD in oceanography and meteorology from the University of Chicago.

He has taken part in a review that impugns the 2007 IPCC report which strongly calls for action to prevent further climate change. He has stated he believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming.

Like I previously posted.. there are many unanswered questions in the claim that global warming is solely a man made issue.

or maybe you might like to read an unedited article and conversations with leading oceanogtaphers and the worls' leading hurricane experts that say that predictions of increased global warming will cause a greater number and more intense hurricanes...

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20050919.pdf

9 to 88 centimeters? NINE TO EIGHTY EIGHT????? What kind of absolutely worthless prediction has a margin of error of nearly 10 times?

Ever heard of "best case scenarios" and "worst case scenarios" when making predictions?

Because projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity (which in turn influences greenhouse gas emissions), climate models are run against ‘human activity scenarios’. The IPCC uses a set of "scenarios" on future emission to be used for driving global circulation models to develop climate change scenarios.

There are 40 different scenarios, each making different assumptions for future greenhouse gas pollution, land-use, etc. These scenarios are organized into 6 families for the IPCC, which contain scenarios that are similar to each other in some respects (A1B, A1FI, A1T, A2, B1 and B2).

Google for SRES, or go to www.ipcc.ch and read at least the two recent published "summaries for policymakers": WG1 (about the causes of GW) and WG2 (about the impact of GW)

I try not to get involved in the "global warming" arguments because I've never found arguing about religion to be very productive.

Baseball game snowed out!...again!...in April!

Exactly. You can expect much more games canceled due to extreme or unexpected weather in the future.

BTW, the 9-88 cm estimate was from the 2001 Third Assesment Report (TAR) of the IPCC. This year the IPCC will publishing its latest report: AR4.
The WG I part of AR4 predicts a Sea Level Rise (in 2090-2099) of 18 cm (low estimate in the B1-scenario) to 59 cm (upper estimate in the A1F1-scenario). Coupled with an increase in tropical cyclones and extreme high tides, this will have especially devastating effects for coastal regions in Asia and Africa.

The sea level rise will not halt in 2100, it is predicted to continue to rise the entire millennium.

See Table SPM-3 in the Summary for Policymakers of the WG I-report.

Willem,

In the matter of cyclones and hurricanes, I've read that a great deal of the mechanics of these storms stems from the difference in temperature between the tropics and the polar regions...and the less differentiation, the less storm-making. If GW theory is correct, then the most warming will take place at the poles, thus lowering the mean temperature difference and thus reducing the amount and severity of tropical storms...

Mark, it's like telling a Muslim that Gabriel didn't write the Koran or telling a Christian that Christ never existed. Hot weather, cold weather, no weather... it doesn't matter. Logic is not involved. This is a matter of faith.

"Neo,

Any estimate that has a margin of error in a factor of ten is worthless...what is pitiable is that you can't see how different the data would have to be to get 9 or 88 cm...essentially you're dealing with two climates, and as you've only got one, you've got a real problem here."

Posted by: Mark Noonan
*************

Actually, Mark, Neo's data is valid if Neo is referring to the climate of the "Genesis" planet from Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. IIRC, David used highly unstable "protomatter"(?) to create the Genesis planet which resulted in wildly varying and shifting climates. So, protomatter would "scientifically" account for the 9 - 88 cm data differential occuring in a single climate.

Kahnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!

"Hot weather, cold weather, no weather... it doesn't matter. Logic is not involved. This is a matter of faith." Posted by: Kahn

Seriously. The fact that the Sun is simultaneously heating up Earth and Mars (4x times faster than Earth!) and Jupiter and Pluto, is completely ignored as if it's just a wild cosmic coincidence. Anyone who is looking at the phenomenon from a logical, scientific basis would attribute the warming to the Sun.

However, the eco-cultists only see what they want to see. Science and logic are thrown out the window.

ecocultists - I like it. Thats the word I couldn't think of.

Neo
If you're still around, check out this site
http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/110

Here's just a taste:
"Statistical uncertainties have now called into question the reliability of Chinese data. Energy use appeared to decline dramatically in the late 1990s, while the more recent surge appears to "conveniently" correct it [1] (see below). To craft effective policy addressing global climate change, energy security, and environmental pollution, policymakers need a better understanding of the long-term relationship between energy use and economic growth, especially in China, so they can make better projections and thus better decisions."

I just stumbled across this site, and low and behold.....

I believe what neologizer failed to mention (or at least he didn't address it well, although Willem addressed it somewhat better) is the fact that his "9cm - 88cm" range incorporated a range of different scenarios considered collectively, not separately. In other words, different individual scenarios made different predictions according to what the response of humanity would be in the time frame analyzed (i.e., the next century). As I understand it, the range of the prediction associated with each scenario was much tighter than if all scenarios were considered collectively. Said in yet another way, it all depends upon what humanity decides to do about the problem between now and then. If you don't know that, then you can't very well make very good predictions.

By the way, does the term "ecocultist" apply to anyone who doesn't believe that significant increases in CO2 concentrations are not a reason for concern? Or does it apply to those that do?

No Ric-o, IMO, that would be a skeptic. A cultist believes what the cult tells him to believe.

Dasein: A cultist believes what the cult tells him to believe.

Exactly. And there are cult-like believers on both sides who strenuously avoid, or simply don't care to attempt to think for themselves. That's what makes them fodder for cults.

You mean they can now tell that CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels is different than CO2 produced by cement manufacture?

What, the electrons spin in the opposite direction?

Trying to convince the population that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere can be broken down into the specific actions that created it?

Talk about reaching!

Junk science at its best.

Respectfully, I'm a skeptic and don't follow the orthodoxy of either zealotry, I started to be concerned about the increase in CO2 until I discovered how much CO2 man is responsible for. By those estimates, we should be in massive warming right now; but we're not.

Now I believe that it’s foolish to believe that our little engines of modernity could possible ruin this planet, or even cause more than a blip on her life-cycle. I might change my mind if ever I see the prophets of global disaster actually sacrificing the way they expect me to.

Btw, you should drop back by to see the responses I left, vis-à-vis “ 32% increase ”.

DL

I tend to agree, and since the cumulative historical emissions from 1920-2025 don't reflect China's actual present day emissions, the data becomes skewed by time. Now that China is emitting CO2 at a greater rate than the US, it only seems fair that China be held accountable and at the same time, come into compliance....verifiable compliance.

ND,

But, isn't that exactly what we oppose?

Here’s what I see on the horizon; alternative energy sources will become viable with government encouragement and incentives; not mandates, restrictions and forced compliance. Third world countries will continue to live in their own filth until the western world offers them a reasonable alternative; clean burning coal, solar, geothermal or nuclear energy, hydrogen cars, etc. Then some of these countries will become wealthy on the new technology.

All the damage China can do the planet will be fixed by the planet over time. Temperatures will go up, temperatures will go down and this old ball will keep on muddling along.

Again...I agree. But, and this is a big "but", that I've been preaching over the past month...China is out of control!

Go to the website I posted earlier and check out their emissions compared to ours over the past decade and you'll see that for a country their size, to be able to slow that train down will not happen over night, but potentially over a half a century or so. My Chinese friends always boast of China's abilty to "turn on a dime", well sure, but how about conform on a dime? No chance of this happening and since they're just now enjoying life, why change now.

My main concern is over their ability to hide their emissions levels from the rest of the world and since they're still a communist country, they believe they have no one to answer to, therefore, get out of our way.

As far as regulatory agencies go (which China has none), I'm in favor of anything that can preserve Ma Earth, but I also require (unlike certain kooks that post here) more credible evidence of the GW effects before I sell off my trucks and toys.

"All the damage China can do the planet will be fixed by the planet over time. Temperatures will go up, temperatures will go down and this old ball will keep on muddling along."

Also, this may work out to be true over time, but with China gaining momentum by the day, everything we do to reverse GW, if it exists, may very well be in vane.

Vain...sorry, no pun (weather vane) intended!!

and still more researchers and experts are coming forward agreeing with me. consensus is beginning to swing into the realm of sensibility, 10 years from now "Global Warming" will be as amusing as a pet rock.