Global warming - not as bad as expected?

[Iangould]

It may be worse:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5006970.stm

Global temperatures will rise further in the future than previous studies have indicated, according to new research from two scientific teams.

They both used historical records to calculate the likely amplification of warming as higher temperatures induce release of CO2 from ecosystems.

They both conclude that current estimates of warming are too low, by anything up to 75%.

Their conclusion is backed up by a new report from the Australian government.

The Australian Greenhouse Office says current estimates of temperature rise are "being challenged" by new research.

That's the same AGO that's financed by, and reports to, a government that's actively opposed to the Kyoto Protocol.

[Tages]

*whistles inconspicuously* (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521010683/sr=8-1/qid=1148457775/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8056103-6567104?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

[Iangould]

Well, yes, the three or four year old popular writings of a guy with a social science degree are obviously a full rebuttal of the latest peer-reviewed work of climatologists,

[Tages]

Well, yes, the three or four year old popular writings of a guy with a social science degree are obviously a full rebuttal of the latest peer-reviewed work of climatologists,
And while scientists skeptical of global warming are obviously in the pocket of oil companies, those who accept it are in no way looking forward to popular recognition and giganto money grants.

*slaps Ian in the face with a red herring, then makes his escape* Away!

[Noah Johnson]

And while scientists skeptical of global warming are obviously in the pocket of oil companies, those who accept it are in no way looking forward to popular recognition and giganto money grants.
Really? The vast, overwhelming majority of experts in this field are ALL hoping for giant money grants?

You really, honestly think that Ayn Rand's philosophy works better than Isaac Newton's, don't you? :)

[Noah Johnson]

Yeah, y'know, I was gonna let it go at that, but no, this ideologically-based attack on the very concept and practice of science is too ridiculous not to stomp on a few more times.

So, Tages, it's your contention that a cabal of scientists have decided to make up an imaginary problem in order to get grant money, right? They're exaggerating whatever may actually exist and lying about their empirical, checkable findings because they think there's a buck in it.

I guess one of the most important questions here is why this is the exception to how science works, y'know, the entire rest of the time. Sure, there've been research angles that didn't pan out. Usually it goes "Give us a grant to find out if this is a problem. ... (Nope, no problem here.) Okay, turns out it isn't a problem. Thanks for the help checking it out." and then we're done.

In this case, though, apparently, it went "Give us a grant to find out if this is a problem. ... (Nope, no problem here.) Yes, there's a very serious problem. Give us more grants to find out what to do about it. (Hey, every other scientist in the field... if anyone asks, there's a serious problem. Yeah, I know it's bullshit, but they don't, and as long as we all agree to peer-review each other's articles in accordance with the phony data, all we have to fear is the noble forces of large oil companies exposing our fraud!)"

So, how come this time? Why has the entire intellectual structure of science suddenly collapsed? How are all the data from multiple independent studies being falsified? I mean, this system has worked exceptionally well for a very long time... I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how in this case it's all of a sudden a massive bullshit conspiracy.

Here, I'll save you the first round. "But there have been scientific frauds before!" "Yes there have, and every one of them has been exposed by the scientific community, through testing and checking. In this case, however, all the testing and checking done over twenty years serves only to reinforce the confirmation of the hypothesis. So that doesn't work."

Look, I'm (slightly) sorry to be so sarcastic, but this really isn't much of a debate. We know, from experience, that the overwhelming opinion of professional experts in a scientific field is almost always correct. We also know, from experience, that large corporations frequently finance bogus science to muddy an issue to their own profit. These are facts.

The only real question here is whether we're basing our judgements on facts or on faith. I've made MY choice...

[Phoney Bone]

If the unquestionable Al Gore says that Manbearpig is going to kill us all then what right do some silly Australian scientists have to coduct scientific testing that contradicts him. I mean, he made a movie about it, for Pete's sake!

[Drew Van T.]

We're at the point where we're putting satellites into orbit for no other purpose than to monitor how global warming is developing.

It's time for the anti-science crowd to stop acting like jerks with blindfolds on.

[Calybos]

They're not acting.

And to be fair, it's not all ignoramuses (ignorami?). Many of these so-called 'debunkers' are genuinely, sincerely trying to undermine science that they know is accurate, simply to protect business interests.

They're just using the popular-spin angles that they know will sell to the masses: "These egghead 'scientists' think they know more than you! They're probably just in it for the money! It's a conspiracy!"

Sure, THEY know better... but who cares, as long as you can get enough ignorant Americans to agree with you and make you feel superior, instead of looking at the facts? (Why do you think teenagers still buy Ayn Rand books after all these years?)

[shadowraven]

We're at the point where we're putting satellites into orbit for no other purpose than to monitor how global warming is developing.

It's time for the anti-science crowd to stop acting like jerks with blindfolds on.

One of the things that irks me about the anti-science crowd is that they think science is politics. I'm sorry to say, but if you get a large enough percentage of american citizens to believe that a certain aspect of science is bogus (regardless of how well it withstands the scrutiny of repeated testing), the structure of reality does not magically change to accomidate the majority opinion.

As for the money angle. Science is probably the worst field to go into if you're looking to make a profit. Ten years of University, 1-5 years as a Post-doctoral fellow, and another Five+ years before you achieve a tenured Professor position just to make as much as your average chartered accountant just getting out of his undergrad? Sounds like a sweet deal to me!

I also don't get why some people can't accept the fact that there are people out there that either know more than they do, or are smarter than they are. No one gets upset if someone says that ARod is better at baseball than them. In fact, many people worship those who are more athletic than they are.

[Noah Johnson]

If the unquestionable Al Gore says that Manbearpig is going to kill us all then what right do some silly Australian scientists have to coduct scientific testing that contradicts him. I mean, he made a movie about it, for Pete's sake!
Phoney, if you're going to post "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING" then just post that. The sarcasm doesn't disguise your contempt for facts as well as you think it does.

[Iangould]

If the unquestionable Al Gore says that Manbearpig is going to kill us all then what right do some silly Australian scientists have to coduct scientific testing that contradicts him. I mean, he made a movie about it, for Pete's sake!

Actually they're agreeing with him.

[Iangould]

A

*slaps Ian in the face with a red herring, then makes his escape* Away!

Okay let's talking about something different: what percentage of Nevada's summer water supply comes from snow-melt?

[Charles RB]

Well, yes, the three or four year old popular writings of a guy with a social science degree are obviously a full rebuttal of the latest peer-reviewed work of climatologists,

Bwa ha ha.

Of course, now they've done this study and the Aussie government's backing them up... what are they suggesting we collectively do about it?

[Sam]

And while scientists skeptical of global warming are obviously in the pocket of oil companies, those who accept it are in no way looking forward to popular recognition and giganto money grants.

Have you noticed the numbers on each side?

Something in the neighborhood of 99% of scientists who aren't in the pocket of oil companies agree that global warming is real, and at least partially caused by human activity.

If you polled a thousand scientists on whether or not cigarettes caused cancer, and 980 of them said, "Yes, all the evidence indicates they do," and 18 of the ones who said otherwise were funded by the tobacco companies, what would you be inclined to believe?

(The funny bit is that this barely qualifies as a hypothetical example, since many of the same scientists and think tanks paid by oil companies to argue against global warming are, you guessed it, the same ones who used to be paid by tobacco companies to argue that cigarettes were good for you.)

[Iangould]

Bwa ha ha.

Of course, now they've done this study and the Aussie government's backing them up... what are they suggesting we collectively do about it?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19183299-2,00.html

"AUSTRALIA will steer a new round of global talks between 189 nations to build a post-Kyoto plan for climate change.
Australia will co-chair the talks to consider a global carbon-trading market to accelerate investment in clean energy technologies and explore ways to encourage developing nations to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Although Australia is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, it won the support of pro-Kyoto nations in Bonn this week to forge a different path towards reducing greenhouse gases beyond 2012 - when the first commitment phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends."

[Charles RB]

AUSTRALIA will steer a new round of global talks between 189 nations to build a post-Kyoto plan for climate change.
Australia will co-chair the talks to consider a global carbon-trading market to accelerate investment in clean energy technologies and explore ways to encourage developing nations to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Cool. What are the chances of those 189 nations agreeing on something though?

[Noah Johnson]

Cool. What are the chances of those 189 nations agreeing on something though?
Depends on whether their governments believe in facts or not.

[Citizen V]

Belive the rumors,Global Warming is a real threat.Nearly all countries in the world have signed a bill that would help prevent carbon dioxide emissions.Except the United States,ironically if the polar ice caps melt,a good portion of the Americas will be flooded,i suppose its a final judgement..

[shadowraven]

Depends on whether their governments believe in facts or not.

The US won't act on softening climate change due to human activities until the midwest is a barren desert. Agricultural management is broken, National Forest Management is broken and Water Quality Management took a huge dive since Bush was elected. It's not surprising that the current admin is not recognizing Global Warming as a serious threat considering they barely acknowledge the muct more easily observable threats of soil errosion/acidification, water pollution, and the destruction of wetland areas.

Canada's not much better concerning Global Warming. We may have signed the Kyoto treaty, but we're one of the worst offenders with regards to signee countries that are not holding up their end of the bargain. Instead of seriously trying to reduce emmisions, Canada's been dragging its feet.

[Drew Van T.]

What are the chances of those 189 nations agreeing on something though?

Same problem as when they were drafting Kyoto; the fact that there is no universal consensus shouldn't stop us. If building separate coalitions with different agendas - the Kyoto coalition, the American coalition - is the only practical way forward, then so be it. As long as there is action.

[fly on the wall]

One of the things that irks me about the anti-science crowd is that they think science is politics. I'm sorry to say, but if you get a large enough percentage of american citizens to believe that a certain aspect of science is bogus (regardless of how well it withstands the scrutiny of repeated testing), the structure of reality does not magically change to accomidate the majority opinion.

As for the money angle. Science is probably the worst field to go into if you're looking to make a profit. Ten years of University, 1-5 years as a Post-doctoral fellow, and another Five+ years before you achieve a tenured Professor position just to make as much as your average chartered accountant just getting out of his undergrad? Sounds like a sweet deal to me!

I also don't get why some people can't accept the fact that there are people out there that either know more than they do, or are smarter than they are. No one gets upset if someone says that ARod is better at baseball than them. In fact, many people worship those who are more athletic than they are.

I don't know. It's like you are sneering in disgust at anyone that just does not agree with these scientists. People have a right to be skeptical, especially about such a preposterous theory that would require so much change in the way the world presently operates.

I'd like more tangible evidence and evidence presented in a way that I can understand it, not just in science jargon gobbledy gook. I'd like more concrete evidence like the ice caps completely melting.

Then I'd be on your side.

Meanwhile are you walking everywhere now and taking Public Transit?

[Noah Johnson]

I don't know. It's like you are sneering in disgust at anyone that just does not agree with these scientists. People have a right to be skeptical, especially about such a preposterous theory that would require so much change in the way the world presently operates.

Of course they have a right to be skeptical. They have a right to ignore all the overwhelming evidence. They have a right to claim that everything that might cost them money is a lie. They have a right to advocate killing millions of people rather than changing the way things presently operate.

It's just that those are all STUPID courses of action and should not be taken for that reason.

I'd like more tangible evidence and evidence presented in a way that I can understand it, not just in science jargon gobbledy gook. I'd like more concrete evidence like the ice caps completely melting.

Science jargon is not "gobbledy gook", it's the technical language of specialists. But your point is fair enough. Al Gore has just made a movie exactly for people like you, who are willing to be persuaded but would like the evidence clearly laid out for them. I recommend you see it. In the meantime, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Causes) ought to be a place for you to start.

As to waiting for more "concrete evidence", I have to assume that's an excuse. With a death toll in the high thousands already, weather patterns turning strange all over the world, and the ice caps receding faster than my hairline, I can't imagine what you think is left to be proven. What would complete melting be a sign of that partial melting is not?

Meanwhile are you walking everywhere now and taking Public Transit?
This is an utter strawman and you know it perfectly well. "You are not completely virtuous, therefore nobody else has to be anywhere." Logically totally invalid; a cheap attempt at changing the subject from important issues.

[Mike Smith]

Though the theories of global warming are debatable at best, we certainly are doing things to the environment that can cause disastrous climate shifts. Things like deforestation, vehicle emissions, disturbing large pristine ecosystems etc. can have an unforseen net effect in local systems. These things can prove disastrous on a small scale and over a long time global scale.

[Sam]

I'd like more tangible evidence and evidence presented in a way that I can understand it, not just in science jargon gobbledy gook. I'd like more concrete evidence like the ice caps completely melting.

Polar bears are drowning en masse for the first time ever because there's not enough ice left for them all to live on.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938132,00.html

How's that?

[shadowraven]

I don't know. It's like you are sneering in disgust at anyone that just does not agree with these scientists. People have a right to be skeptical, especially about such a preposterous theory that would require so much change in the way the world presently operates.

I came off as a little bitter, because I was thinking of all the BS Science has put up with recently in North America, and not reacting exclusively to the Global Warming question as I should have. Specializing in Evolutionary Science, you'll have to excuse me if I get a tad sore when thinking about the recent trend for the government to totally dismiss a majority consensus of experts who specialize in a particular field to cater to special interests which benefit themselves (whether that be votes, campaign kickbacks or stock interests).

Of course you shouldn't outright accept every theory that makes the headline. But if the majority of the world's leading researchers agree on a particular theory, it's usually because that theory matches the available evidence.

The people I sneer at are those who disregard ANY evidence if it goes against their own intuition/first impression of the matter, regardless of the fact that they more than likely have zero knowledge of the subject at hand. You may not be one of these people, but there are plenty of them out there.


I'd like more tangible evidence and evidence presented in a way that I can understand it, not just in science jargon gobbledy gook. I'd like more concrete evidence like the ice caps completely melting.

Then I'd be on your side.

That has always been a problem in science. Some things in science can be simplified a great deal for non-specialists and still carry the point across intelligently (Animal behaviour is a good example). Other fields of science unfortunately require you to have at least some knowledge of basic/intermediate scientific principles. Physics is a good example of this. It would be hard to show someone the proof to why Force = Mass*Acceleration unless they have a solid background in Calculus and Algebra.

The beauty of science is that as long as you're a fairly smart individual, and are willing to learn all the pre-requisite information, you could theoretically reproduce any scientific study and get the same observations first hand. Reproducibility is key in science. It doesn't matter how intriguing your theory is, if others can't reproduce your results independantly, it gets discarded. That a big reason why science is so self-correctional. Even if Scientist A is a fraudulant bastard, eventually he'll be found when Scientists B and C try and recreate his experiment, but get completely different results. This may take six months or six decades but the majority of Scientific frauds are discovered.


Meanwhile are you walking everywhere now and taking Public Transit?

Yes actually. But I'll have to admit that it's due more to monetary reasons than evironmental reasons. I'm currently clearing out some debt I accumulated during undergrad, and since I'm a grad student with limited funds to begin with, I had to make some sacrifices to do this. Since I'd rather live in moderate comfort without a car, than live like a hobo in order to afford insurance/gas/maintenance, I gave up my car.

Like Noah mentioned though, that isn't really relevent to the discussion or my position. People drive cars that pollute the air because public transit is a joke outside of select cities and car companies develop cleaner burning cars as slow as possible without hurting their profits. If gas ever gets to the point where lower-middle class citizens can no longer afford to run their cars, I bet you'll see an extremely quick turn-around to alternative fuel as an industry standard (instead of the industry novelty it currently is).

[Phrozen]

Polar bears are drowning en masse for the first time ever because there's not enough ice left for them all to live on.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938132,00.html

How's that?

Because what you have when the tempeture goes up is an expansion of the climates zones heading north and south. What was tundra may become temperate and so on. That means that artic conditions will be more localized around the poles.

We know this because there is lots of geological evidence of climate shifts in the Earths history.

[shadowraven]

Polar bears are drowning en masse for the first time ever because there's not enough ice left for them all to live on.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938132,00.html

How's that?

Another tidbit about Polar Bears. They get most of their nutrition for the year from seals in the winter when the ice flows are at their peak. In the summer they eat very little and live off fat reserves (polar bears do not eat much vegetation like black bears and grizzleys do).

Due to much milder winters lately however, Ice flow season has been shortened significantly and many polar bears no longer have the adequete time needed to aquire their winter fat reserves. Since they can't catch enough seals in the winter, some bears are moving into rural communities in Northern Canada (something they rarely did in the past) and are feeding off garbage. This poses a public safety risk because Polar bears are nasty creatures who have been known to kill and eat humans on more than one occasion.

[howyadoin]

No response from Tages yet?

[Phoney Bone]

Phoney, if you're going to post "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING" then just post that. The sarcasm doesn't disguise your contempt for facts as well as you think it does.

As opposed to the "Man-Made Global Warming" crowd "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING" reactions when other scientists ~dare~ to question them and are mocked and ridiculed for even suggesting "Natural Global Climate Change". I'll go a step further than mock and ridicule. Those who support natural climate change are treated as if they are commiting blasphemy, much as Darwin was by The Church.

The same way the "Earth is Round, Not Flat" and "Hey, If You Bleed That Guy Too Much, He's Gonna Die" crowds were treated by the respective scientific "authorities" of their time.





Or maybe those mammoths and saber tooth tigers caused the Great Ice Age with their damn SUV's and not signing the Kyoto Agreement. How else would you explain all those fossils of palm trees and lizards in Antarctica. Surely it wasn't a natural world-wide climate change, was it?

When Science stops asking questions and/or stops considering other alternatives, then you have theology and Science dies.

[Iangould]

I don't know. It's like you are sneering in disgust at anyone that just does not agree with these scientists. People have a right to be skeptical, especially about such a preposterous theory that would require so much change in the way the world presently operates.

Actually the changes required are quite modest.

I'd like more tangible evidence and evidence presented in a way that I can understand it, not just in science jargon gobbledy gook. I'd like more concrete evidence like the ice caps completely melting.

So if only half of it melts you'll still be in the do-nothing camp?

Meanwhile are you walking everywhere now and taking Public Transit?

I can't speak for anyone else but this is exactly what I do.

[Phoney Bone]

Though the theories of global warming are debatable at best, we certainly are doing things to the environment that can cause disastrous climate shifts. Things like deforestation, vehicle emissions, disturbing large pristine ecosystems etc. can have an unforseen net effect in local systems. These things can prove disastrous on a small scale and over a long time global scale.

And just think of all those trees that were destroyed to make all of those Earth Day posters... which in turn have become more garbage and liter polluting the planet.

[Iangould]

I have this picture of fly at the doctor's:

"mesathelioma?"

"Computerised Axial tomography?"

"chemotherapy"

"Hold on brainiac, spare me all the big words. I'll wait until I have definite proof before I make all changes you want me to make to my lifestyle."

[Iangould]

As opposed to the "Man-Made Global Warming" crowd "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING" reactions when other scientists ~dare~ to question them and are mocked and ridiculed for even suggesting "Natural Global Climate Change". I'll go a step further than mock and ridicule. Those who support natural climate change are treated as if they are commiting blasphemy, much as Darwin was by The Church.

The same way the "Earth is Round, Not Flat" and "Hey, If You Bleed That Guy Too Much, He's Gonna Die" crowds were treated by the respective scientific "authorities" of their time.

Actually the "No anthropogenic warming" crowd are more like the guys who refused to accept that thar new-fangled heliocentric theory.

The Ptolemaists had to keep coming up with "epi-cycles" and "epi-epi-cycles" to explain how the perfect spherical rotation of the sun, moon and planets around the Earth just happened to look like the Earth and the other planets orbiting the sun in elliptical orbits.

Similarly the no-AGW peopel have to insist somehow that the well-established re-absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 and methane isn't happenign in the atmosphere or is being canceleld out by some mysterious negative feedback effect which they can't idenify.

Then they have to invent some other explanation as to what really caused the observed heating over the past century.

[Noah Johnson]

As opposed to the "Man-Made Global Warming" crowd "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING" reactions when other scientists ~dare~ to question them and are mocked and ridiculed for even suggesting "Natural Global Climate Change". I'll go a step further than mock and ridicule. Those who support natural climate change are treated as if they are commiting blasphemy, much as Darwin was by The Church.
Two questions:

1. Are you aware that the entire quoted paragraph is absofuckinglutely 100% wrong?

2. Do you care that it's wrong?

Because if you care, or are willing to fake it, I can explain and demonstrate how it's completely factually inaccurate. Then you'd know more than you did before.

But you know, I don't think you do care.

[Phoney Bone]

Two questions:

1. Are you aware that the entire quoted paragraph is absofuckinglutely 100% wrong?

2. Do you care that it's wrong?

Because if you care, or are willing to fake it, I can explain and demonstrate how it's completely factually inaccurate. Then you'd know more than you did before.

But you know, I don't think you do care.

Okay.. I'll rephrase it.

In MY personal experience... from atending college classes... as well as family and friends who are doctors and meterologists who have had discussions with others in the scientific community about global climate change... whenever a the topic of man-induced global warming comes up and anyone question it... we have been treated with mockery and scorn for even daring to be skeptical or questioning... which is odd since having a questioning mind an searching for all possible answers is the the foundation of Science... from MY personal experience man-induced global warming is treated as gosphel fact instead of scientific theory... and to suggest otherwise has met with replies that basically accuse us of heresy... replies by Science teachers and other professionals in the scientific community.

From my personal fucking experience and the experiences of my family and friends, mind you.

[Noah Johnson]

from MY personal experience man-induced global warming is treated as gosphel fact instead of scientific theory.
That's more fair. I appreciate the clarification.

Next questions:

1. Are you aware that it's treated as fact because it's supported by 100% of the available evidence, apart from research funded by oil companies and scientifically illiterate "gotcha" games from talk radio morons?

2. Do you care about THAT?

[Dan Apodaca]

And just think of all those trees that were destroyed to make all of those Earth Day posters... which in turn have become more garbage and liter polluting the planet.

Well, while that could be a point, I don't think you can provide any proof that recycled paper wasn't used.

[Phoney Bone]

That's more fair. I appreciate the clarification.

Next questions:

1. Are you aware that it's treated as fact , apart from research funded by oil companies and scientifically illiterate "gotcha" games from talk radio morons?

2. Do you care about THAT?

1. Just like the available evidence that proported the dawning of a new Ice Age reported by Newsweek magazine in 1975, which said we would be suffering massive depletion of wheat by now? Scientific research that suggested we should purposfully melt the polar icecaps by covering them with soot? http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

2. I care that I wish I had gotten in on the ground level of Global Warming research. THAT'S where the money is at!

3. Do YOU even care that "because it's supported by 100% of the available evidence" at the time that the Earth was flat proves that Science is mutable... including the science of TODAY?

4. I could care LESS that Al Gore is a Global Warming posterboy for the sole purpose of trying to woo back the Green Party vote. (Does that sound ridiculous? No more than the FALSE assumption that ALL natural climate change proponents are on the "Big Oil" payroll.)

[Phoney Bone]

Well, while that could be a point, I don't think you can provide any proof that recycled paper wasn't used.

Can you prove that it was? And what DID happen to all of those posters? Were THEY recycled, or just tossed in the garbage and burned to pollute the atmosphere?

[Phoney Bone]

From Al Gore's WebSite:

Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making

Ten years? Weren't the Global Warming proponents claiming that in 1990?

Meanwhile today, in other weather-related news from around the Web...

New Yorkers turned up their thermostats Sunday night to fend off an unusual pre-Memorial Day chill.

In the lower Hudson Valley, frost warnings were issued, as the overnight temperature dipped to a chilly 38 degrees Fahrenheit.

The rest of the country was enjoying unseasonably cool weather as well, with Dallas and Atlanta - where the temperature often tops 90 degrees by late-May - coming in 10 degrees below seasonal norms.

Chicago's temperature had climbed to just 55 degrees by mid-morning.

Looks like those guys from 1975 may have been on to something!

[howyadoin]

From Al "The Government Should Regulate Rock Mucsic" Gore's WebSite:

"Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making."

Ten years? Weren't the Global Warming proponents claiming that in 1990?I'm sure Katrina was just a coincidence.

[Iangould]

From Al "The Government Should Regulate Rock Mucsic" Gore's WebSite:

"Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making."

Ten years? Weren't the Global Warming proponents claiming that in 1990?

No, otherwise they wouldn't have provided for a 2008 start date for the Kyoto Protocol.

[Phoney Bone]

I'm sure Katrina was just a coincidence.

All hurricanes are caused by Global Warming?

Hurricane of July,1502--Was a storm that the great explorer and discoverer of American, Christopher Columbus, predicted would strike the island of Hispanola. He used his prediction to warn the Governor of Hispanola, Nicholas de Ovando, who had 30 ships in his fleet set sail back to Spain. However, the governor ignored him, and refused Columbus' request to stay in port at Santo Domingo. Within two days the storm struck in the Mona Passage between Hispanola and Puerto Rico, and sank 21 of the 30 ships, and killed approximately 500 sailors.


Colonial Hurricane of 1635--Was a powerful New England hurricane that struck the Massachussetts Bay Colony in 1635 some fifteen years after the Mayflower struck land at Plymouth Rock. This storm had reminded many of the pilgrims and settlers of past hurricanes that struck in the West Indies or Caribbean. Many of the pilgrims believed that this storm was apocalyptic.


Hurricane of October, 1743--A storm that affected what would become the Northeastern United States and New England, brought gusty winds and rainy conditions as far as Philadelphia, and produced flooding in Boston. Central barometric pressure of the storm was measured to be 29.35 inches of Hg in Boston. This storm, which wasn't particularly powerful, was memorable because it garnered the interest of future patriot and one of the founders of the United States, Benjamin Franklin, who believed the storm was coming in from Boston. However, it was going to Boston. Nevertheless, it began the long educational journey, which would be our understanding of hurricanes.


Great Hurricane of 1780--This storm was one of several that year, which was one of the worst hurricane seasons in the era prior to record taking. Winds were estimated to be Category Four strength at 135 mph. This storm, which affected the Southern Windward Islands including Barbados, St. Vincent, Grenada, Martinique, St. Eustatius, and near Puerto Rico and Grand Turk Island, is believed to have killed approximately 22,000 people. Of that total, between 4,000 and 5,000 people were killed on St. Eustatius. Martinique had an estimated 9,000 people killed including 1,000 in St. Pierre, which had all of its homes destroyed.


Great September Gale of 1815--Was the last hurricane to strike New England before the Long Island Express of 1938. The storm struck on September 23, 1815, and brought an 11 foot storm surge to Providence, which was the highest storm surge in the Rhode Island captial prior to the Great Hurricane of 1938, which had a 17.6 foot storm surge. This storm was the first hurricane to strike New England in exactly 180 years.


Cape May Hurricane of 1821--The last major hurricane to make a direct landfall in the Garden State of New Jersey. This storm, which was a Category Four Hurricane, struck Cape May, New Jersey on September 3, 1821, and had hurricane force winds go as far west as Philadelphia while folks in New Jersey experienced wind gusts of up to 200 mph. The storm cut a path of destruction that is similar to that of the Garden State Parkway. More detailed information on this hurricane is at Greg Hoffman's Real Lousy Weather Page.


The Hurricane of 1846--Referred to as "The Great", used its northeast quadrant that caused havoc on the Delaware all the way up to Camden, New Jersey. This storm revealed the fact that Delaware Bay is open to southeast winds in the right quadrant, and water in the Bay would go upriver into cities such as Wilmington, Philadelphia, and Camden.


Hurricane of September, 1874--Struck the Carolinas around the end of September, 1874. This storm is remembered for being the first such hurricane to be shown on a weather map by the Weather Bureau. At the time it was shown, the hurricane was located off the Southeast Coast between Jacksonville, Florida and Savannah, Georgia.


Hurricane of September, 1875--Was an intense hurricane that struck the Southern Coast of Cuba as predicted by Father Benito Vines, who began to develop a tremendous reputation for accurately predicting when and where a hurricane would strike. His studies of tropical storms and hurricanes during the latter portion of the 19th Century made the Cuban forecasters some of the best hurricane forecasters in the world at the time.


Indianola Hurricane of 1886--Destroyed what had been the leading port city in Texas at the time on August 19-20, 1886. Indianola, which was located in Matagorda Bay, was hit by this storm, and another one a bit more than a month later. As a result, business that previously came into that port, moved up the coast to Galveston, which became the prominent port city in the Lone Star State until it was devastated by the Great Hurricane of 1900.


Atlantic Hurricane of 1893--Was a strong Category One Hurricane that struck New York City with 90 mph winds on August 24th of that year. Barometric pressure was only 29.23 inches of Hg, but it leved some one hundred trees in Central Park. The beach and piers on Coney Island was devastated. However, it wasn't as bad as Hog Island, a sand spit off Rockaway Beach that was wiped off the map.


Sea Islands Hurricane of 1893--A major hurricane of Category Three strength that made landfall in Savannah, Georgia on August 27th, but its northeast quadrant hammered Sea Islands in Beaufort County, South Carolina. As a result, approximately 2,000 to 2,500 people were killed and upwards of 30,000 people were left homeless.


Galveston Hurricane of 1900--The deadliest natural disaster in United States History, this Category Four Hurricane moved through Cuba into the Gulf of Mexico before slamming ashore in Galveston, Texas on September 8, 1900 killing 6,000 people.

Darn those pre-20th Centurians and their greenhouse emmissions!

[Phoney Bone]

No, otherwise they wouldn't have provided for a 2008 start date for the Kyoto Protocol.

I DISTINCTLY remember scientists and celebrities appearing on 20/20, 48 Hours, CNN, and other news programs preaching the dangers of Global Warming in the early 90's. Hell, Ted Dansen even appeared on The Jim Henson Hour and tried to scare the little kids watching shitless that all sea life would be destroyed in 10 years because of the ocean drying up.

Are you disputing Sam Malone!?

[howyadoin]

All hurricanes are caused by Global Warming?Yes, of course. That was exactly what I meant.

I couldn't possibly have been referring to the fact that last fall's hurricane season was so much longer or more intense than usual. Or to the Al Gore quote you posted that relates to that.

[Iangould]

I'm asking you to come up with something other than 15 year old memories to support your position.

[Phoney Bone]

Yes, of course. That was exactly what I meant.

I couldn't possibly have been referring to the fact that last fall's hurricane season was so much longer or more intense than usual. Or to the Al Gore quote you posted that relates to that.

But there have been many hurricane seasons in history that were longer and more intense than usual. Long before Al Gore was there to point them out to us.

[Phoney Bone]

http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-jt011698.html

But, because this was a presentation from 1998, it isn't relevant anymore. Science can only deal with now and not history, I guess. That and the Cato Institute is on the oil companies payroll.

[Phoney Bone]

double....

[Iangould]

History isn't relevant to science?

Your assertion that in 1990 people were claiming we had 10 years to fix global warming or face disaster isn't science.

[Iangould]

That and the Cato Institute is on the oil companies payroll.

As it happens, yes they are.

[Noah Johnson]

1. Just like the available evidence that proported the dawning of a new Ice Age reported by Newsweek magazine in 1975, which said we would be suffering massive depletion of wheat by now? Scientific research that suggested we should purposfully melt the polar icecaps by covering them with soot? http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

That theory was discredited, momentary media hype notwithstanding. That's the point; theories not backed up by facts are discarded. It amazes me, genuinely amazes me, that you cannot grasp this concept.

2. I care that I wish I had gotten in on the ground level of Global Warming research. THAT'S where the money is at!

This is factually untrue. It's also a completely inane non sequitur supported by nothing.

3. Do YOU even care that "because it's supported by 100% of the available evidence" at the time that the Earth was flat proves that Science is mutable... including the science of TODAY?

I can't parse the first half of that sentence. The second half appears to be mistaking science's greatest strength for some kind of weakness. (In the words of Charles Babbage: "I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.") Of course science is mutable. Again, that's the point. It is always based only on the best available data. In this case, 100% of the best available data indicates that human-related pollution is a major contributor to global climate change. Every year, the data supporting this hypothesis get stronger. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. The complete lack of reason in your own doubt helps demonstrate this.

4. I could care LESS that Al Gore is a Global Warming posterboy for the sole purpose of trying to woo back the Green Party vote. (Does that sound ridiculous? No more than the FALSE assumption that ALL natural climate change proponents are on the "Big Oil" payroll.)

It is not a false assumption. It is an observable fact.

Why do you not like observable facts? Were you abused by one as a child or something?

[Phoney Bone]

Your assertion that in 1990 people were claiming we had 10 years to fix global warming or face disaster isn't science.

My apologies. Ted Danson said that POLLUTION was going to destroy the oceans in ten years in 1990, not global warming. The scare video was "No Safe Harbor".

[Iangould]

My apologies. Ted Danson said that POLLUTION was going to destroy the oceans in ten years in 1990, not global warming. The scare video was "No Safe Harbor".

so do you apply the same standard when comparing the Bush administration's current beat-up over Iran with their pre-invasion claimss about Iraq?

While we're at it, tell us what you think the cost of addressing global warming would be and how it compares the $500 billion plus blown to date on the invasion of Iraq.

[Phoney Bone]

Why do you not like observable facts? Were you abused by one as a child or something?

Why do you not like th truth that science is mutable except for scientific Law and that there is undisputable history that today's accepted science change tommorrow.

However, if you can enlighten me to any source that says Man-made Global Warming is an absolute scientific LAW, then I'll be 100% convenced.

The only abuse I suffered as a child was a bit of poverty during the Carter years caused when a superfulous Union strike forced my father out of work and our family had to live on food stamps.

[Phoney Bone]

so do you apply the same standard when comparing the Bush administration's current beat-up over Iran with their pre-invasion claimss about Iraq?

While we're at it, tell us what you think the cost of addressing global warming would be and how it compares the $500 billion plus blown to date on the invasion of Iraq.

Considering that Danson was using the research of honest-to-gosh scientists to back his claim....

[Iangould]

Considering that Danson was using the research of honest-to-gosh scientists to back his claim....

Yes and Colin Powell assured us he had detailed intelligence.

Remember rumsfeld's "we know where they (WMDs) are" comment?

[Phoney Bone]

Yes and Colin Powell assured us he had detailed intelligence.

Remember rumsfeld's "we know where they (WMDs) are" comment?

Thank you, for making my point for me on the accuracy of what the "experts" have to say on a given subject. The intellegence of the U.S., England, France, Germany, Russia, etc., assuring us of WMD's in Iraq... scientists from the U.S., England, France, Germany, Russia, etc., assuring us that man-made global warming is a threat.

Global warming/ pollution destroying the oceans = WMD's in Iraq.



Manbearpig.

[Phoney Bone]

As it happens, yes they are.

Yes... that's what I said. Just as the scientists who depend on funding from trying to disprove global warming, there are scientists who depend on funding trying to prove global warming. So what makes them any more or less believeable?

[Iangould]

Thank you, for making my point for me on the 100% accuracy of what the "experts" have to say on a given subject. The intellegence of the U.S., England, France, Germany, Russia, etc. assuring us of WMD's in Iraq... scientists assuring us that man-made global warming is a threat.

Global warming/ pollution destroying the oceans = WMD's in Iraq.

Umm, no. My point is you're attempting to discredit global warming on the basis of vague memories of what you think an entertainer said a decade again on a children's entertainment program while speaking on a different topic.

However, if I recall correctly your position on Iran you're far more credulous about the current administration's claims despite the fact that these are the exact same people were publicly, spectacularly and verifiably wrong only three years ago.

[Iangould]

Yes... that's what I said. Just as the scientists who depend on funding from trying to disprove global warming, there are scientists who depend on funding trying to prove global warming. So what makes them any more or less believeable?

For one thing, most of the people supporting the AGW theory are in university positions- see the Ward Churchill thread for a discussion of how tenured academics are given job security specifically so they can speak out on controversial issues without worrying about where their funding is coming from.

For another, the money being paid out by Exxon Mobil et al is far more than the amount being provided for GW research,

For a third, the posts which started this thread point out that scientists working for the Australian government WHICH IS OPPOSED TO THE kYOTO PROTOCOL AND HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF SACKING AND CENSORING SCIENTISTS FOR SPEAKING OUT IN SUPPORT OF THE AGW HYPOTHESIS are supporting these latest claims.

For a fourth, the money a computer scientist can make in the private secor (and computer modelling is central to climate science) is massively higher than they can make in academia. Any computer scientist who was primarily interested in money wouldn't be running climate models, they'd be doing quantitative analysis for one of the Wall Street broking houses.

[Jeff Brady]

Yes... that's what I said. Just as the scientists who depend on funding from trying to disprove global warming, there are scientists who depend on funding trying to prove global warming. So what makes them any more or less believeable?

They could be paid to lie? The ones in the pocket of oil companies, I mean.

Who stands to profit from global warming? The Air Conditioning lobby?

I have noticed changes in weather (/change in the sea/from now on there'll be a change in me...sorry). The summers are hotter, winters are milder. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had to turn on my AC. I remember when we used to get big snowstorms in December. Now they don't come until February. It seems like the seasons are shifting around a little bit, like delayed reactions. I remember in 3rd grade, we had a freak snowfall in the middle of May. This past January, we had 60 degree temperatures.

If it's another ice age, or the magnetic poles rearranging themselves, wouldn't there be an equal and opposite reaction to the ice caps melting? It has to be getting colder somewhere else, at the same, rather alarming rate. The Alaskan permafrost is no longer frosty. Is there a more temperate zone that's becoming frosty?

I'm afraid I don't know enough to tell Google what to search for. Someone help a Luddite out.

[Noah Johnson]

However, if you can enlighten me to any source that says Man-made Global Warming is an absolute scientific LAW, then I'll be 100% convenced.
There is no such thing as an absolute scientific law and there never has been. Gravity, the speed of light, photosynthesis, evolution, all of these are simply theories which are supported by all the data. Like AGW.

Really, you shouldn't talk about things you don't understand even the basic principles of. It doesn't reflect well on you.

[Phoney Bone]

Umm, no. My point is you're attempting to discredit global warming on the basis of vague memories of what you think an entertainer said a decade again on a children's entertainment program while speaking on a different topic.

Jim Henson Hour, episode 2, season 1, and I apologized for making the mistake between global warming and pollution.

And it isn't the ONLY thing I am basing my views towards man-made vs. natural global climate change on.

However, if I recall correctly your position on Iran you're far more credulous about the current administration's claims despite the fact that these are the exact same people were publicly, spectacularly and verifiably wrong only three years ago.


The WMD's were reportedly in Iraq due to the intelligence of the spy and surveillence experts from all over the world (the same intel that Clinton used as justification, where the term WMD was born, to bomb Iraq). Hell, even Saddam's own generals thought they had WMD's. That intel was wrong. Intel that had been around for years. Although WMD's wasn't the only reason Bush gave for invading Iraq, it certainly was the most vocal. Scientific experts in 1990 said that pollution would destroy the oceans within 10 years. They were wrong. in 1975, scientific experts said that a new ice age would destroy most of world's wheat crops and cause world-wide starvation. They were wrong.

Time and time and time again History proves that experts in all fields (intel, government, business, agriculture, religion, and even... gasp... history itself) can be proven wrong, even when they have evidence to back their claims.

Just because Science says now that global climate change is man-made don't neccessarily make it true.

Not until it becomes a bonefide Scientific Law. Which it hasn't.

[Noah Johnson]

Thank you, for making my point for me on the accuracy of what the "experts" have to say on a given subject. The intellegence of the U.S., England, France, Germany, Russia, etc., assuring us of WMD's in Iraq... scientists from the U.S., England, France, Germany, Russia, etc., assuring us that man-made global warming is a threat.

Global warming/ pollution destroying the oceans = WMD's in Iraq.
Once again, you disprove the very point you're attempting to make.

It was believed that Iraq had WMDs. This theory was tested by weapons inspectors. They reported that the facts on the ground indicated no WMDs existed. Most people modified their opinion based on these facts. Bush chose to ignore the facts and instead go with what he had an ideological need to believe was true. The result was a catastrophically stupid policy that has resulted in untold thousands of unnecessary deaths.

In this analogy, you're Bush, the guy so hell-bent on believing what's convenient that he's willing to ignore the facts, no matter how many deaths it means.

Is that really the guy you want to be?

[Noah Johnson]

Not until it becomes a bonefide Scientific Law. Which it hasn't.
Really, seriously, for your own dignity, you need to stop trying to talk about science until you know something about it.

[howyadoin]

"Bonefide"?

[Iangould]

The WMD's were reportedly in Iraq due to the intelligence of the spy and surveillence experts from all over the world (the same intel that Clinton used as justification, where the term WMD was born, to bomb Iraq). Hell, even Saddam's own generals thought they had WMD's. That intel was wrong. Intel that had been around for years. Although WMD's wasn't the only reason Bush gave for invading Iraq, it certainly was the most vocal. Scientific experts in 1990 said that pollution would destroy the oceans within 10 years. They were wrong. in 1975, scientific experts said that a new ice age would destroy most of world's wheat crops and cause world-wide starvation. They were wrong.

Time and time and time again History proves that experts in all fields (intel, government, business, agriculture, religion, and even... gasp... history itself) can be proven wrong, even when they have evidence to back their claims.

Just because Science says now that global climate change is man-made don't neccessarily make it true.

Not until it becomes a bonefide Scientific Law. Which it hasn't.


So can I take that it that you will oppose any action against Iran based on intelligence reports regarding their alleged military nuclear program?

[Tages]

No response from Tages yet?
I have a job. Give me a little space why doncha'.

[Phoney Bone]

There is no such thing as an absolute scientific law and there never has been. Gravity, the speed of light, photosynthesis, evolution, all of these are simply theories which are supported by all the data. Like AGW.

Really, you shouldn't talk about things you don't understand even the basic principles of. It doesn't reflect well on you.

It doesn't reflect well on you that you are unable to grasp the simple concept that science has been proven mutable in the past and that maybe, just maybe, the experts on global climate may be mistaken on what actually causes it.

Or, we could simply petition all who publish basic high school and college textbooks and convince themt to ammend the Scientific Method to end at "Theory" instead of "Law".

[howyadoin]

I have a job. Give me a little space why doncha'.By all means.

[Noah Johnson]

It doesn't reflect well on you that you are unable to grasp the simple concept that science has been proven mutable in the past and that maybe, just maybe, the experts on global climate may be mistaken on what actually causes it.

Or, we could simply petition all who publish basic high school and college textbooks and convince themt to ammend the Scientific Method to end at "Theory" instead of "Law".
Yeah, see... basic science textbooks DO explain how scientific laws work, that they're subject to amendment based on new data. You should read one.

And you realize that the position you've been backed into is that we should never take any action on any information because it can never be good enough, right? Of course you do. I'm sure that was your contention from the start.

[Phoney Bone]

Really, seriously, for your own dignity, you need to stop trying to talk about science until you know something about it.

I have no dignity. I'm stbborn in the notion that, "Hey, Science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past, it may just be wrong about that this."

Not really a hard concept to grasp.

[Iangould]

I have no dignity. I'm stbborn in the notion that, "Hey, Science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past, it may just be wrong about that this."

Not really a hard concept to grasp.

Yes, but you seem to be having trouble grasping the concept that this particular theory has been investigated more thoruoughly than virtually any other and there is essentially NO credible evidence against it.

[Phoney Bone]

And you realize that the position you've been backed into is that we should never take any action on any information because it can never be good enough, right? Of course you do. I'm sure that was your contention from the start.

No, the corner that I've "backed myself into" is that shit changes and what you think you know now (myself included) could be wrong. No matter how much you wish it otherwise.

Of course, all this could be solved if just went back to using whales as an energy source, thus saving the environment from added pollution. When the worst byproduct is a tasty Mrs. Paul's patty, it can't be all that bad.

[Noah Johnson]

I have no dignity. I'm stbborn in the notion that, "Hey, Science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past, it may just be wrong about that this."
We're down to "may just" now, I see?

Sure, I'll stipulate that. Could turn out to be wrong. Maybe every piece of evidence we have is actually a Space Phantom controlled by a Yellow Fear Monster with a robot double. However, ALL the data indicate that the theory is correct, which works out to a very high degree of certainty indeed. Such a degree is MORE than sufficient by any known standard to take action, especially in a case where failure to take action will result in millions, if not billions, of deaths.

Smart people make decisions on the best available data. They don't try to make excuses not to make decisions.

[Noah Johnson]

No, the corner that I've "backed myself into" is that shit changes and what you think you know now (myself included) could be wrong. No matter how much you wish it otherwise.
Considering that your initial position was that AGW proponents were profit-driven liars, yes, you've backed down.

And since you're advocating taking no action in a situation with an EXTREMELY high degree of certainty, we can only assume that, as an intellectually honest man, you would never advocate taking action in a situation with a lower degree of certainty, and consequently never advocate taking action in any situation whatsoever. This is logically inevitable given your statements, and can be fairly assumed to be the position you're taking.

The alternate explanation would be that you simply parrot talking points on subjects about which you know nothing, but it would be very rude of me to make such an uncharitable assumption, hence the more generous theory that you favor never taking any action based on any information whatsoever.

[Phoney Bone]

Yes, but you seem to be having trouble grasping the concept that this particular theory has been investigated more thoruoughly than virtually any other and there is essentially NO credible evidence against it.

I don't doubt global climate change at all... really, I don't. What doubt the notion that it is man-made and not the natural cycle of a mass as old as Planet Earth. The Earth got rid of the dinosaurs without our help, thank you. How do we know it's simply not just our turn... or if it will pass as so many other upheavals in the ways of nature over the millenia.

Scientists have been activley studying the climate and weather to any degree (no pun intended) for a century. A drop in the bucket compared to how ancient this world is.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I have no dignity. I'm stbborn in the notion that, "Hey, Science has been wrong about a lot of things in the past, it may just be wrong about that this."

Not really a hard concept to grasp.

The big problem for you is, the mistake science made in the past, which you have reffered to several times now, is that 'they' said the world is flat.

Now really, what tests had they done to prove it?
How many scientific minds worked on it?
Any?
Or was it just some shit somebody said and nobody challenged, until, y'know, it did get challenged?
I mean really, they didn't have the rules of proof that they do now.

I don't doubt global climate change at all... really, I don't. What doubt the notion that it is man-made and not the natural cycle of a mass as old as Planet Earth. The Earth got rid of the dinosaurs without our help, thank you. How do we know it's simply not just our turn... or if it will pass as so many other upheavals in the ways of nature over the millenia.

Except one of the big theories for the dinosaurs dissapearing, was due to a meteor hitting the earth.
Didn't have too much to do with the earth, if that was the case, more to do with an outside infulence.
The earth doesn't think after all.

[Phoney Bone]

Considering that your initial position was that AGW proponents were profit-driven liars, yes, you've backed down.

And since you're advocating taking no action in a situation with an EXTREMELY high degree of certainty, we can only assume that, as an intellectually honest man, you would never advocate taking action in a situation with a lower degree of certainty, and consequently never advocate taking action in any situation whatsoever. This is logically inevitable given your statements, and can be fairly assumed to be the position you're taking.

The alternate explanation would be that you simply parrot talking points on subjects about which you know nothing, but it would be very rude of me to make such an uncharitable assumption, hence the more generous theory that you favor never taking any action based on any information whatsoever.


It would be rude of me to point out that the parroting other peoples talking points can go both ways (such as doing research for an oil company automatically disqualifies you as a credible scientist), so I won't.

[Samurai]

Yes, but you seem to be having trouble grasping the concept that this particular theory has been investigated more thoruoughly than virtually any other and there is essentially NO credible evidence against it.
You are VASTLY overstating the theory of man-made global warming. Thousands of scientists disagree with it, and have publically said so. Yet you think it is more tested and reliable than, say, the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity? Got anything to back up such an amazing claim?

[Samurai]

The wrong or incomplete science can lead to making a problem worse, not better. For instance, it has long been believed that plants reduce global warming, and deforestation increases it, right? Well, a new study contradicts that...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1684378,00.html?gusrc=rss

They have long been thought of as the antidote to harmful greenhouse gases, sufferers of, rather than contributors to, the effects of global warming. But in a startling discovery, scientists have realised that plants are part of the problem.

According to a study published today, living plants may emit almost a third of the methane entering the Earth's atmosphere.

The result has come as a shock to climate scientists. "This is a genuinely remarkable result," said Richard Betts of the climate change monitoring organisation the Hadley Centre. "It adds an important new piece of understanding of how plants interact with the climate."

Methane is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to the greenhouse effect. "For a given mass of methane, it is a stronger greenhouse gas, but the reason it is of less concern is that there's less of it in the atmosphere," said Dr Betts.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

The wrong or incomplete science can lead to making a problem worse, not better. For instance, it has long been believed that plants reduce global warming, and deforestation increases it, right? Well, a new study contradicts that...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1684378,00.html?gusrc=rss

Of course, they did print this retraction

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Monday January 16 2006

The headline above overstated the more circumspect case outlined in the article below, which said that plants emit up to 30% of the methane, a greenhouse gas, entering the Earth's atmosphere. Scientists have just discovered this, but to conclude that it is a new cause of rising temperatures is mistaken.


So it isn't that certain of a finding.

Edit to add:

Intresting that despite it being at the top of the article you linked to, you didn't feel the need to quote or mention it.

[Samurai]

It's the Guardian, bastion of the left. I'm sure they were assualted by tons of letters saying "You're hurting the cause of environmentalism by publishing such a story!" So they added a blurb (NOT a retraction) saying that the title of the piece ("blame the forests for global warming") was a bit of an exaggeration. The article doesn't make that claim, though, and thus is still perfectly valid. You notice that while I didn't copy the blurb, neither did I copy the over-the-top title it referred to...

The same story is printed at various other sites (usually with less flamboyant headlines), but if I can use the Guardian to make a point, that's always a plus...

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

It's the Guardian, bastion of the left. I'm sure they were assualted by tons of letters saying "You're hurting the cause of environmentalism by publishing such a story!" So they added a blurb (NOT a retraction) saying that the title of the piece ("blame the forests for global warming") was a bit of an exaggeration. The article doesn't make that claim, though, and thus is still perfectly valid. You notice that while I didn't copy the blurb, neither did I copy the over-the-top title it referred to...

The same story is printed at various other sites (usually with less flamboyant headlines), but if I can use the Guardian to make a point, that's always a plus...

But the part you put in bold is in contradiction to the 'correction and clarification'.

[Paragon Kobold]

Man-made global warming basically boils down to:

Fact: Humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Fact: The world is getting warmer.

Theory: These two facts are connected.

The other alternative is that it is a natural process. This really reqires two natural processes: One to prevent the greenhouse gases we produce having any effect on the climate, and then a second, unrelated, natural process to step in and actually produce the warming.

I feel that the first alternative is the most convincing.

[Samurai]

Man-made global warming basically boils down to:

Fact: Humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Fact: The world is getting warmer.

Theory: These two facts are connected.

The other alternative is that it is a natural process. This really reqires two natural processes: One to prevent the greenhouse gases we produce having any effect on the climate, and then a second, unrelated, natural process to step in and actually produce the warming.

I feel that the first alternative is the most convincing.
Your 2nd alternative is not the only other possibility. The most common alternate theory is that man's effect on global warming is tiny, in the overall scheme of things. It's like pissing in the ocean... are you adding liquid? Yes. Does it really matter? Not really.

[Kid Omega]

You are VASTLY overstating the theory of man-made global warming. Thousands of scientists disagree with it, and have publically said so. Yet you think it is more tested and reliable than, say, the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity? Got anything to back up such an amazing claim?

I think the more amazing claim that needs to be backed up is that "Thousands of scientists disagree with it, and have publically said so.". Care to point to a few that AREN"T on the payroll of Exxon Mobile?

[macul]

I'm sure Katrina was just a coincidence.

The only thing worth noting regarding katrina is that it hit a major city. Other than that, it wasn't all that special as far as hurricanes go.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

The only thing worth noting regarding katrina is that it hit a major city. Other than that, it wasn't all that special as far as hurricanes go.

Well, that and that it showed that Cuba has better evacuation and recovery plans than the US does.

[shadowraven]

2. I care that I wish I had gotten in on the ground level of Global Warming research. THAT'S where the money is at!


This is a really bad example if you're trying to prove science is mutable.
The earth being flat was never a belief supported by evidence. When a ship leaves port for open water, the mast is visible longer than the rest of the ship due to the curvature of the Earth. This was observed centuries before Columbus, and many ship navigators were under the impression the Earth was round long before he came around. The Flat-earth theory (like the geo-centric theory) is vaguely supported by the bible, which was probably one of the reasons it persisted so long. Hell, there is STILL a society of flat-earthers today. Mind you they're extreme Christian Fundamentalists.

[macul]

There are plenty of scientists and reports that disagree with the "man is responsible" theories. That and the fact that earth has gone through climactic changes many times in the past leaves me skeptical at best that man is the cause.

[Winslow]

I've heard the arguments that the earth is going through a geologic warming cycle.

But the rate of warming for the past 100 years apprears unprecedented.

That's what convinced me that there is a link between the industrial revolution and the warming of the planet.

I thought the oil companies had moved past the idea that there is no such thing as global warming - and were now pronouncing the earth would change into a lavish greenhouse jungle full of CO2 that's good for plants (that's the last spin I read anyway).

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I thought the oil companies had moved past the idea that there is no such thing as global warming - and were now pronouncing the earth would change into a lavish greenhouse jungle full of CO2 that's good for plants (that's the last spin I read anyway).

Why would they?

There seem to be plenty of ostriches out there listening to them as it is.

If you can force an ongoing public debate, then you really don't need to do too much to fix it.

[Phrozen]

I've heard the arguments that the earth is going through a geologic warming cycle.

But the rate of warming for the past 100 years apprears unprecedented.

That's what convinced me that there is a link between the industrial revolution and the warming of the planet.

I thought the oil companies had moved past the idea that there is no such thing as global warming - and were now pronouncing the earth would change into a lavish greenhouse jungle full of CO2 that's good for plants (that's the last spin I read anyway).

Actually, due to the higher tempetures, there will be much more moisture in the air, combine this with higher tempetures and you would see an expansion of climate zones in which plant life is very viable.

There is a reason why Newfoundland was called Vinland and Greenland was called Greenland when the Vikings found the islands. Greenland was probably green and Newfoundland probably had some sort of berry or grape plants because of the high tempeture period in the beginning to middle of the middle ages.

[cable guy]

But there have been many hurricane seasons in history that were longer and more intense than usual.

And we are entering a time, for the next couple of years, where hurricanes are going to be extra fierce.

It has happened before.

[Kid Omega]

Here's the thing...

Pollution affects the climate. That's pretty well substantiated. Whether or not we are headed for catastrophic heat waves or just higher UV entrance in the atmosphere doesn't seem to matter. Fossil fuels are creating CFC emissions that are unhealthy in some way.

Why would people deny it, or refuse to see it, or not care, or whatever?

1. They have economic interests. If you see a scientist saying that greenhouse gasses are not a problem, they are almost gauranteed to be on the payroll of an industry that can't afford to cut down on their CFC emissions.

2. Fear. Fear causes people to deny the obvious.

3. Laziness. It takes calories to ride a bike to work. Or organizing a car-pool. The idea that driving a gas-guzzling vehicle may be contributing to major environmental problems means that the responsible thing to do would involve finding a new vehicle and driving it less. That's too much work. So obviously this "global warming" is just liberal propaganda. I used to know people that would drive their car to the mailbox. These are not people worried about the planet.

4. Blind political allegiance. A lot of people are "republican" or "conservative" the way some people are "yakee fans". Environmental concerns are lockstep dismissed as "liberal", so people will deny or argue just because the current administration is anti-environment/pro-fuel company. God forbid these guys say, "I agree with their tax policies but not with their policies on Kyoto standards." There is a sense in the current Republican Party that is "you are either with us on everything, or you have views that we mock until you fall in line". My brother is this way. It is painful to have a conversation with him, because any time you start to make sense, he brushes it off with some bullshit remark about how real men drive big vehicles. that is the kind of anti-logic the Neo-cons like to use.... you can see it daily in their pundits.

Whe you look at this issue, it's interesting that people saying that climate change is a problem have Nothing To Gain, while people denying it, have Everything To Lose.

The facts are pretty clear, but if those aren't enough to convince someone, look at the motivations behind what people are fighting for.

It's pretty scary.

[Calybos]

Phoney, if you're met with mockery when you question something that's firmly established by science, with overwhelming amounts of proof in nine different directions... Well, that's a shame, but it's also to be expected.

Someone calling himself a scientist who then said "I know of no evidence that evolution really occurs" would encounter similar mockery from legitimate scientists who know better.

Really, scientific knowlege is far from perfect, and never complete (by definition)... but some elements are so well established as to make opposition absurd--and informed opposition impossible. Gravity, for example. Evolution. And though global warming doesn't rank quite as high on the confidence scale as, say atomic theory, it's still WAY up there.


Now, of course, the administration's argument is that "We can't possibly take any action on this until we have 100%, proof-positive, ironclad certainty that global warming is absolutely happening, right before our very eyes, here on this kitchen table." And yet, they've never demanded this level of certainty for other things. (Like, say, invading Iraq. Or shutting down stem-cell research. Or spreading myths about birth control and abortion.)

Why do you suppose that they suddenly want 100% total certainty on THIS issue, and not on any others?

[Kid Omega]

Actually, due to the higher tempetures, there will be much more moisture in the air, combine this with higher tempetures and you would see an expansion of climate zones in which plant life is very viable.

There is a reason why Newfoundland was called Vinland and Greenland was called Greenland when the Vikings found the islands. Greenland was probably green

You should do a quick google search on that.

[Dreadstar]

Here's the thing...

5. Don't care because they believe it's probably for the best to use up the fossil fuels and get it over with, so we can move on to the next alternate source. Deadlines tend to bring out the creative in people.

[Phrozen]

You should do a quick google search on that.

Yes, because the mountains of archaelogical evidence supporting the Vikings grew barley and wheat on Greenland are absolutely wrong. The moutains of evidence that the Vikings didn't change their cultural traditions when the climate began to chage for the colder and thus died off in Greenland is absolutely wrong. Those skeletons that show signs of starvation that date back to the later Viking period in Greenland were just naturally like that right?

How about Vinland, if you could grow wheat and barley as far north as Greenland, you could grow berries or grapes in Newfoundland. Wales used to have a wine industry, that is until the climate changed. Heck, berries grow in Newfoundland just fine today. You can make wine out of berries. Googling it did nothing but confirm what I was saying.

[macul]

You should do a quick google search on that.

I liken the Greenland sales pitch thing to being told an apartment has a waterfront view only to discover that the view is a small, filth ridden retention pond.

[Nick Soapdish]

There are plenty of scientists and reports that disagree with the "man is responsible" theories. That and the fact that earth has gone through climactic changes many times in the past leaves me skeptical at best that man is the cause.

About 10%.

The percentage of climatologists that don't believe that man is causing ... or at least a substantial influence on ... global warming is less than 2%. I'm sure the number (of scientists, not just climatologists) do come to Samurai's thousands, but it's hardly a significant minority. The percentage of scientists that consider it Proven is probably a lot lower. Not many scientists are willing to go that far out on a limb. I've mostly just heard that they think it's 90% probable, but I don't know if they've calculated that out or if they're just saying "pretty sure".

I'm a bit less skeptical that man might not be to blame because there are a lot of other things that don't happen that often that man is decidedly to blame for this time so it's not much of a stretch to add one more.

And Katrina isn't that significant from a global warming standpoint. It's more of the exclamation point. The real significance is the heavy activity of the last few years, including the many storms that never hit land. Last year was the heaviest year since we've been tracking (back in the mid-1800s although I bet they missed more than a few).

Personally, I don't consider it to be evidence of global warning. We're supposed to be in a heavier hurricane cycle now anyway and the half-baked memories that I have from a decade ago had scientists suggesting that the increased number of hurricanes wouldn't be kicking in for a while longer - maybe even another thirty years. Which could conveniently line up with when the global warming induced heavier cycle begins so the real fun would begin on our next "heavy" cycle mid- to late next in this century.

[Nick Soapdish]

Actually, due to the higher tempetures, there will be much more moisture in the air, combine this with higher tempetures and you would see an expansion of climate zones in which plant life is very viable.

There is a reason why Newfoundland was called Vinland and Greenland was called Greenland when the Vikings found the islands. Greenland was probably green and Newfoundland probably had some sort of berry or grape plants because of the high tempeture period in the beginning to middle of the middle ages.

All depends on where you are.

In areas with lots of surface water, there will be more moisture in the air since it can evaporate out.

In areas with less surface water .... like say, the American mid-west ... it'll be drier.

The predictions about global warming (whether man-induced or not) are fairly complicated. Some parts of the earth actually cool. Some will get wetter. And then others get a lot hotter and drier. I seem to recall reading that winters would be milder and that it wouldn't have much of an effect on summers. Which might be good, except that it means that all the rivers out west that depend on snowmelt won't be getting as much and the glaciers won't be building up as much in winter so they'll be retreating faster.

[Phrozen]

I liken the Greenland sales pitch thing to being told an apartment has a waterfront view only to discover that the view is a small, filth ridden retention pond.

Actually, Greenland was fertile enough at that time to support wheat and barley agriculture, later climate change made it pretty much unhabitable except for the Natives Aleuts, who had culturally adapted to an artic climate.

[Nick Soapdish]

Actually, Greenland was fertile enough at that time to support wheat and barley agriculture, later climate change made it pretty much unhabitable except for the Natives Aleuts, who had culturally adapted to an artic climate.

Yep. Greenland and the Vinland settlements both did fine until The Little Ice Age. Which ended shortly after the Industrial Revolution. (Coincidentally?)

[Phrozen]

All depends on where you are.

In areas with lots of surface water, there will be more moisture in the air since it can evaporate out.

In areas with less surface water .... like say, the American mid-west ... it'll be drier.

The predictions about global warming (whether man-induced or not) are fairly complicated. Some parts of the earth actually cool. Some will get wetter. And then others get a lot hotter and drier. I seem to recall reading that winters would be milder and that it wouldn't have much of an effect on summers. Which might be good, except that it means that all the rivers out west that depend on snowmelt won't be getting as much and the glaciers won't be building up as much in winter so they'll be retreating faster.

From what I have read, there is an expansion of climate zones especially the tropical and temperate zones and a reduction of the tundra and artic zones. Now, it is quite possible that some places will be cooler due to increased cloud cover but that would be the exception.

[Phrozen]

Yep. Greenland and the Vinland settlements both did fine until The Little Ice Age. Which ended shortly after the Industrial Revolution. (Coincidentally?)

Coincidentally I would guess. Considering, that the little ice age ended almost right after the beginning of the Industrial revolution where industrialization was extremely limited.

[Kid Omega]

5. Don't care because they believe it's probably for the best to use up the fossil fuels and get it over with, so we can move on to the next alternate source. Deadlines tend to bring out the creative in people.

hahaha...

That's a good point. As soon as the oil is gone, Exxon/Mobile will grudgingly produce the hydrogen engines.... if we make it through the riots.

[Iangould]

It's past midnight here so I'm goign to have to respond ot a lot of stuff tomorrow.

But one quick point: if you see a guy running out of a building carryign a can of petrol and a box of matches and the building is on fire, the logical inference is that the two events are causally linked.

Pointing to a whole lot of other incidents where fires occurred without arson being the cause doesn' t alter the fact that the guy was running from the building carrying a can of petrol and a box of matches.

Yes we know there have been past bouts of global warming not caased by man (well we think we do but Samurai and Phoney will doubtless tell us that's all just a theory). We know because, for example, the ratio of C14 to c16 in deposits of plant matter change. However we can also look at the ice core data from Lake Vostok and other sites and see that those incidents were preceded by and apparently caused by increases in levels of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere.

The levels of those gases during past bouts of global warming were similar to or lower than those we have now and can reasonable expect to see in the next few decades.

We know where the current increase in GHGs is coming from - because we know pretty exactly how many million tonnes of coal and gas we've burnt in the past century.

So forget the rhetoric about natural cycles and pissing in oceans. We know the levels of CO2 required to produce global warming and we know we have raised the ambient concentrations to those levels.

[Dreadstar]

If global warming is indeed a fact, what is the absolute worst outcome?

I mean, I KNOW the UV is worse these days, I can feel it (subjective opinion), but that's ozone depletion. Which, while linked to the same CAUSE is a different symptom.

Lots and lots more and stronger huricanes? The Outer Banks becoming unihabitable? Cotton production moving to Illinois?

[Winslow]

If global warming is indeed a fact, what is the absolute worst outcome?

I mean, I KNOW the UV is worse these days, I can feel it (subjective opinion), but that's ozone depletion. Which, while linked to the same CAUSE is a different symptom.

Lots and lots more and stronger huricanes? The Outer Banks becoming unihabitable? Cotton production moving to Illinois?

I don't think anyone knows for sure.

The scariest I've heard - is that it will affect Ocean Currents ability to temper Northern regions (due to the increase in ocean levels), and we actually get the reverse, an accelerated Ice Age.

[Dreadstar]

I don't think anyone knows for sure.

The scariest I've heard - is that it will affect Ocean Currents ability to temper Northern regions (due to the increase in ocean levels), and we actually get the reverse, an accelerated Ice Age.

Actually, that one I've heard. except that it wouldn't be an Ice Age, per se, more of a locality "ice age" to the locales that are dependant on being warmed by ocean currents. In other words, places like Vancouver could kiss those mild winters goodbye.

[macul]

If global warming is indeed a fact, what is the absolute worst outcome?

I mean, I KNOW the UV is worse these days, I can feel it (subjective opinion), but that's ozone depletion. Which, while linked to the same CAUSE is a different symptom.

Lots and lots more and stronger huricanes? The Outer Banks becoming unihabitable? Cotton production moving to Illinois?

Florida would probably be gone and even though I live in the state I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. I mean, anything that can wipe out the stain that is Gainesville can't be all that bad, right?

[Jeff Brady]

I've been ignored, so I'll try to parse my original post a bit.

If it's another ice age, or the magnetic poles rearranging themselves, wouldn't there be an equal and opposite reaction to the ice caps melting? It has to be getting colder somewhere else, at the same rather alarming rate. The Alaskan permafrost is no longer frosty. Is there a more temperate zone that's becoming frosty?

[shadowraven]

I've been ignored, so I'll try to parse my original post a bit.

Britain is cooling actually.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1654803,00.html

[Nick Soapdish]

Coincidentally I would guess. Considering, that the little ice age ended almost right after the beginning of the Industrial revolution where industrialization was extremely limited.

Also coincidentally, the Little Ice Age wasn't a global Ice Age, but only took place over Western Europe and parts of North America. And industrialization wasn't that limited circa 1850.

But I agree that the effect of industrialization, if any, wasn't a whole lot. Maybe just helped end it a bit earlier.

[Jeff Brady]

Britain is cooling actually.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1654803,00.html

Ah, thank you. Where's its opposite point on Earth? If Britain's bound to be the next North Pole, where will the next South Pole be? Is the climate in that area experiencing the same effect?

[Dreadstar]

Ah, thank you. Where's its opposite point on Earth? If Britain's bound to be the next North Pole, where will the next South Pole be? Is the climate in that area experiencing the same effect?


That'd be smack dab in the middle of bumfuck and nowhere, South Pacific.

EDIT: Plus, if the cap was shifting towards Britain, wouldn't ICELAND be the first to experience the greater changes?

[Jeff Brady]

That'd be smack dab in the middle of bumfuck and nowhere, South Pacific.

Thanks; that's what I thought, but I'm geographically declined. The world revolves around NYC. Since no one really lives there, I guess a study of the currents/climate in that area doesn't exist.

EDIT: Plus, if the cap was shifting towards Britain, wouldn't ICELAND be the first to experience the greater changes?

That would make more sense. Maybe all the hot springs interfere?

[shadowraven]

Ah, thank you. Where's its opposite point on Earth? If Britain's bound to be the next North Pole, where will the next South Pole be? Is the climate in that area experiencing the same effect?


Well, I don't think Britain will be the next North Pole exactly. The article says that the Gulf Stream only buffers temperatures by about 10 degrees, without it they would probably have weather similar to Nova Scotia. If you've never been to the Canadian east coast, the winters can get pretty miserable.

I would imagine that other areas which depend on temperature modification from warm water currents would be similarily affected, but I don't know for sure.


Also, a wetter planet would not be better for us, even though Jungles would enjoy it. We get the majority of our food from grass species. Grasses only started to come into prominence when areas of the earth began to dry out, creating the savannahs, prairies, and similar eco-regions.

Plus, water vapour traps sunlight as heat. More vapour in the air results in a warmer planet, which in turn evaporates even more water, and so the cycle continues. That's what the runaway greenhouse effect is. The extreme result of a runaway greenhouse effect is venus. Granted, that would take tens of millions of years to happen.

[Dreadstar]

Maybe all the hot springs interfere?

That might make an interesting theory. I'm more inclined to think the caps aren't shifting.

[shadowraven]

Also, glaciers can't form in the middle of the ocean. If Antarctica and Greenland weren't located where they are, there wouldn't be any substantial polar ice caps.

[Jeff Brady]

I'm just trying to figure out how we're entering a new ice age when the polar caps are melting and no place else is freezing over as dramatically as the caps are melting.

If we're entering a natural "warming period," fine. It's still "global warming." From what I've seen, it seems like it'll hurt a lot of folks.

If it's the poles shifting, is there magnetic evidence to back this up? Where will our ice caps come from if glaciers can't form in the middle of bumfuck & nowhere in the South Pacific?

As far as the humans causing GW? I really don't know. I think we should try our best not to make it worse. We pump out tons of toxic crap all the time, and it's going to affect us sooner or later. Why not try to minimize self-poisoning, and if it helps out the environment...well, bonus!

[Dreadstar]

I'm just trying to figure out how we're entering a new ice age when the polar caps are melting and no place else is freezing over as dramatically as the caps are melting.
Not "entering" an ice age. Setting the table for one, by screwing up the ocean currents.

[Kid Omega]

As far as the humans causing GW? I really don't know. I think we should try our best not to make it worse. We pump out tons of toxic crap all the time, and it's going to affect us sooner or later. Why not try to minimize self-poisoning, and if it helps out the environment...well, bonus!

Ding ding ding!

"I'm obese... it may be genes, it may be because I eat to much... it may be because I'm anaerobic... it may be glandular. Either way, it would be in my best interest to exercise more and eat healthier."

Of course, to the republicans who have stock in McDonalds, it makles sense to argue with this poor fat fellow.

[Jeff Brady]

Not "entering" an ice age. Setting the table for one, by screwing up the ocean currents.

Ah, okay. I must have misread/misinterpreted something Phoney said.

[Samurai]

Ding ding ding!

"I'm obese... it may be genes, it may be because I eat to much... it may be because I'm anaerobic... it may be glandular. Either way, it would be in my best interest to exercise more and eat healthier."

Of course, to the republicans who have stock in McDonalds, it makles sense to argue with this poor fat fellow.
Um, no one is FOR pollution. The question is "how extreme do we get in combating it, because everything modern man does creates SOME pollution..." So, do we stop eating meat because animal farts rise into the air? So we stop driving cars because of emissions, or is merely making them a little or a lot more efficient "enough"? Do we sign up with an extremely dodgy international monetary redistribution scheme just because some tree-huggers like it? Do we plant more trees (because they absorb CO2) or cut down trees (because they emit some methane)? What is "enough"?

[Dan Apodaca]

Can you prove that it was? And what DID happen to all of those posters? Were THEY recycled, or just tossed in the garbage and burned to pollute the atmosphere?

No, that's the point. None of us have facts for that kind of shit, so it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

VOID.

[Adam Crocker]

It's the Guardian, bastion of the left. I'm sure they were assualted by tons of letters saying "You're hurting the cause of environmentalism by publishing such a story!" So they added a blurb (NOT a retraction) saying that the title of the piece ("blame the forests for global warming") was a bit of an exaggeration.

Except that nothing in the article that quotes the scientists involved in the study advances the argument that methane from plants are contributing to global warming, save for the part you highlighted: "But in a startling discovery, scientists have realised that plants are part of the problem." In fact it later on says:

But the concentration of methane in the atmosphere has almost tripled in the last 150 years, mainly through human-influenced so-called biogenic sources such as the rise in rice cultivation or numbers of flatulent ruminating animals. According to previous estimates, these sources make up two-thirds of the 600m tonnes worldwide annual methane production.

So where are these angry letters that you allege forced the Guardian retract part of their article?

[Dan Apodaca]

Um, no one is FOR pollution.

Excuse me, but I think that's really naive. There are industries that require pollution to profit.

[Samurai]

Excuse me, but I think that's really naive. There are industries that require pollution to profit.
Which industry? The only one I can think of is environmental clean-up companies. No other industry really requires pollution, or would not happily wave a magic wand to make their industry 100% environmentally safe.

[Paul McEnery]

Which industry? The only one I can think of is environmental clean-up companies. No other industry really requires pollution, or would not happily wave a magic wand to make their industry 100% environmentally safe.
True, but who cares? That's just ignoring the issue.

Absent the magic wand, there are industries that wouldn't make a profit if they took care of their environmental responsibilities, is his point.

I'm not sure if that's true, but I do know that it's true that many, many companies are only environmentally compliant if forced, because environmental compliance costs money.

[Phrozen]

Not "entering" an ice age. Setting the table for one, by screwing up the ocean currents.

Last time I checked, Coastal South America isn't that cold much less in ice age conditions and they get some of the coldest water currents coming up from the South Pole. In fact that cold water helps support the fishing industry there.

[Dreadstar]

Last time I checked, Coastal South America isn't that cold much less in ice age conditions and they get some of the coldest water currents coming up from the South Pole. In fact that cold water helps support the fishing industry there.

Posts #120 and 121, please. Careful not to assume too much from the bare bones of those posts and direct your inquiries to the proper person.

[Tages]

OK, this post isn't going to be a cohesive argument so much as a grab bag of quotes and factoids I've collected on the issue.

In a report titled “New Research Questions Uniqueness of Recent Warming.” (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://gk.nytimes.com/mem/gatekeeper.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26URIQ3DhttpQ3AQ2FQ2Fwww.nytimes.comQ2F2 004Q2F10Q2F05Q2FscienceQ2FearthQ2F05clim.htmlQ26OQ 51Q3D_rQ513D2Q5126orefQ513DsloginQ26OPQ3D1a24a9bdQ 512FrQ517BQ5160Q517ErTQ515B)oQ513FQ515BQ515BiWrW88 JrQ51278r8Xro)BQ5160Y)Q5160rQ51609Q513FiNr8X)pBj(N ijp&OP=30a12530Q2FQ25.Q5DPQ25r@!Q5DQ5BsiQ25_!Q7BQ5BEEr gQ25Eo,!Q5D_!Q5DsQ25Q3EQ5B!Q5DFQ5DQ5DEQ5DoG_!Q7B) Andrew Revkin, who had until them been one of the theory's most stalwart proponents, says this in the New York Times:

A new analysis has challenged the accuracy of a climate timeline showing that recent global warming is unmatched for a thousand years. That timeline, generated by stitching together hints of past temperatures embedded in tree rings, corals, ice layers and other sources, is one strut supporting the widely accepted view that the current warm spell is being caused mainly by accumulating heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe emissions. The authors of the study, published in the current issue of the online journal ScienceExpress, said they did not dispute that a sharp warming was under way and that its pace could signal a human influence. But they said their test of the methods used to mesh recent temperature records with centuries-old evidence showed that past natural climate shifts were most likely sharply underestimated. Many climate scientists credited the new study with pointing out how much uncertainty still surrounds efforts to turn nature's spotty, unwritten temperature records into a climate chronology.
Dixy Lee Ray, former scientist and governor of Washington when Mt. Saint Helens erupted, said this in her book Trashing the Planet (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060974907/lewrockwell/104-8056103-6567104):

The eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 dumped more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all that has been released since the industrial revolution. Volcanoes have been erupting for millions of years with the same result. If this really affected climate, don't you think it would have happened by now?
Here (http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-MedievalGlobalWarming.html) is an article that explodes the "hockey stick" thesis and shows how you can lose your job if you have the wrong position on global warming.

In the journal Geophysical Research Letter, Peter Winsor studied data collected by submarines cruising the arctic and concluded that the thickness of the ice had been almost constant between 1986 and 1997. You can view it here (www.earthscape.org/r1/ES16798/Glaciological_Data_30.pdf) though you have to sign up.

In the Journal Nature polar researchers came to the conclusion that the regions they studied in the Antarctic (mostly the McMurdo Dry Valleys) had actually cooled 0.7 degrees from 1986-2000. You can view it here (www.nature.com/nature/journal/ v415/n6871/full/nature710.html) though again, you have to sign up.

The Journal Science estimated that between 1992 and 2003 the East Antarctic ice sheet had grown 45 million metric tonnes. You can view it here (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/308/5730/1894.pdf) (again, sign up).

As for the threatened extinction of the polar bear, the threat is exaggerated. Mitch Taylor, an expert on Canadian animal populations, says (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005) the polar bear population in Canada has increased (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7f44f1ff-d170-4431-b2e8-9c99d9d31e11) a full 25 percent from 12,000 to 15,000 (http://www.scientific-alliance.org/opinions/opinions_published_letters/polarbears.htm). Steven C Amstrup has estimated in increase in the number of polar bear females in Alaska 600 to 900 (http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/s034.htm), a 33 percent increase.

Still not convinced? In a World Wildlife Fund report titled "Polar Bears at Risk" (http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/polar_bears_at_risk_report.pdf) the WWF divides world polar bear populations into 20 groups. Of these groups, only 2 are declining in numbers, 10 are stable, 5 are actually growing, and 3 are unknown. While the report warns that global warming may eventually endanger the polar bear, it's fairly clear that it isn't doing that right now.

CO2science.org (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/MainPage.jsp?MerchantCode=CO2ScienceB2C&Page=Index) is a fantastic web site for resources contradicting the theory of global warming.

The Oregon Institute Petition (http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm), signed by over 17,000 scientists, states that there is inconclusive evidence about global warming, as does The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change (http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html).

"Melting the Global Warming Myth" (http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2002/27mar2002.html) is an interesting article on the subject, though I should caution that the people who published it, Accuracy in Media, aren't the most reliable of folks on other subjects.