Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

This was one of the biggest problems, I had initially about global warming. what to believe, each side were basically trying to shove it down ones throat with nothing more than "trust me" or bury you with facts and figures.

Was any of the emails altered?

I think things would have been alot better if the topic didn't get politicized, i.e. politicians get involved for their own benefit under the pretense of making poeple "aware" and rather just leave it up to the science community that have no political agenda's. With nothing more than speeches of "Do as I say, and not as I do"

I feel they are more dependable.

p911

GA emc_c

Its complicated one, esspecially climate change, guess thats a softer and more unbias term than Global Warming, but the sad part is if you want to find the answers these crusaders either the left or right of the issues, can over kill and be the biggest detriment to their own cause.

A good example is this original discussion,...... you remember,.... about the leaked, stolen or hi-jacked email. This topic has been basically hi-jacked again for a soap box agenda on the topic itself.

It is interesting though.

p911

ps

too bad you didn't sign in for the ga

Johann, right on man!

Seems to me that this is a great gift for the global warming deniers side: it eliminates all that messy 'science stuff' which makes most people uncomfortable, and brings it down to the level of debating 'Octomom', Brittany Spears' weight, or Tiger Wood's affairs, where every opinion is equally valid.

Many religious people make absurd and disingenuous arguments based on their religious beliefs. Do we take that as proof that God doesn't exist? I haven't taken the time to wade through all the leaked documents, and I'll bet that is true for most of us posting here, but I am certainly troubled by what they are reported to have said and done. That doesn't mean that I have decided that the absorption spectrum of CO2 or any of the other greenhouse gasses has changed, or that glaciers have started to grow again.

This might be interesting fodder. I know AP is part of the 'liberal media elite', the UN is a communist plot, and NASA is full of incompetent liars, but:

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/News-UN-warmest-decade-on-record-120909.aspx?xmlmenuid=51

Anonymous Hero,

Ok thats a good graph and GA to ya, but I don't see a source at the bottom of it so I can get a copy.

Spacecannon

This pretty much says it all...

I truly don't want to initiate a heated debate and hope that any following discussion can remain both civil and confined to logic. And please be aware that I'm asking this with good intent.

I've always wondered something about that those who argue against man-made global warming. One of the most oft-repeated statements is that the whole thing is a sham because scientists & environmentalists want to exert some kind of nebulous "control" on people.

Perhaps it's just my low intelligence, but I've never quite understood what that control would be exactly nor how they stood to gain from it.

A little help, please?

Anonymous Hero,

Thank you very much for your response. But the explanations offered seem to me to still be very vague. I understand you're saying that there will be a repeal of "freedoms that represent a threat to tyranny" - but that doesn't tell me anything about which freedoms nor the specifics on how they will be repealed. Precisely how are they going to rob us of exactly which liberties? And again, what's in it for them personally? The altruistic motive of keeping someone else in power doesn't seem a viable motivation.

To me what you've put forth is just another way of saying - and I beg you to please pardon my language - that "the bogeyman is coming to get you".

I promise you I'm trying to understand. Not trolling at all. But I'm really looking for some solid information.

You Wrote:"I am not suggesting that the world is falling into Nazism, but many of the tools used to subvert the populace then are still at work today."

You mean like inventing a vast conspiracy to create fear and anger.

Biased Liberal Media
Biased Science
Biased and Evil Communitee Groups

You guys have gone completely off the deep end.

Documented? Sure, Ad Nauseam? No way

What fascinates me is the source of these conspiracy theories are:

1. A media figure who just signed for $400 million dollars
2. A network that every other network says is biased
3. Politicians

And yet somehow these seem like reliable, non-manipulative, non-biased sources to you guys. In other words, from where I'm sitting, the things they are getting you all worked up about about the left is exactly what they are doing to you. And you guys take it hook line and sinker.

You've even turned on moderates in your own party now.

Roger is both highly intelligent and very passionate in what he believes and he recognizes that his passion can overwhelm him in some instances.

Don't want to pigeon hole him like that. But that is very true. Any discussion he does do, he does to win.

He is just being held back right now, which is usually done only with this topic.....thats all. Check out his blog, Roger's Equations

p911

Thank you for your continued response. I appreciate your time on this.

I've got to say that I'm somewhat disturbed that you can't seem to articulate one concrete example or motivation. I understand that it's a very complex subject, but simply to dismiss it away repeatedly under a blanket statement of "the proof is all there in history" gives one the impression that you're only desirous of a dark parallel between past and present events rather than being able to actually identify one.

Forgive me for asking again, but in this specific instance what personal power is weilded by those who supposedly serve?

I'm all for being wary of abuses of power, but in the apparent absence of any (since none are thus far cited) I can't help but think that some are swinging madly at ghosts in some misplaced urge to fight just for fighting's sake.

you say " everyone has to wear a helmit when riding a motorcycle, then have to wear seat belts in a car, no talking on cell phones, Must have head lights on if windshield wipers are on, it starts out small then moves onto more personal things and or ridiculous"

While I agree with much of your response there is a vast difference between rules for basic safety require to engage in an activity that involves other people. If you want to be able to drive on a highway, you have to abide by the rules. If you want to pave your own personal property with streets and ride around without head lights or windshield wipers, you are free to do so, even in California.

I do agree that the rules and laws have gone from what's practical to the absurd in many cases, especially with what is being proposed with the current health care legislation essentially forcing people to buy insurance.

Many want to equate the such a law to the requirement for automobile owners to have auto insurance. But again, it goes back to the privilege of driving. If you don't want to buy auto insurance, then you don't have to...it just means you are not able to drive. The reason for requiring it is primarily to protect others in case you have an accident. Whereas in healthcare, requiring me to purchase health insurance doesn't give me any choice unless you consider making me pay a fine (is that really a choice?) or moving out of the country a reasonable choice.

How do helmet and seat belt laws protect anyone besides the person who has to comply with the law? Granted these are good safety tips, but what is the rationale for having them imposed by law?

I had no problem with auto insurance companies giving discounts to those who wear helmets and seat belts, that's just good business, and the element of choice isn't lost.

But when the gov't tells you have to do something for your own good, something is wrong.

emc_c

I'm kind of on the fence about the seat belt and helmet laws. In the case of seat belts since it's been shown to save lives, I suppose one argument is that if you choose not to wear one and die in an accident leaving behind children, society has to then take over care for those children. The other argument is that it increases automobile insurance costs for others. I don't see how an insurance company is going to give a discount for whether or not you wear a helmet or your seat belt. Do they monitor you all day and as soon as you don't wear it, your rate goes up? It's not practical. Even if they change your rate after you have an accident and it's discovered you were not wearing a seat belt or helmet, what do they do? change your rates? If you are dead, they may not pay out I suppose. Still seems to me to be difficult to implement.

Personally, I think people should be able to make those choices without it being against the law...but this is one area that to me is a little grey due to significant costs to others. If insurers required it as a condition of insurance coverage and it's determined that the person in the accident wasn't wearing a safety device so the insurer would not be liable, then I would be comfortable with those laws going away. There is also the issue of those not able to make such choices on their own (children, special needs individuals, etc.). If there is no law requiring a child to wear a seat belt, then the parent is making the choice for that child. Unfortunately there are too many irresponsible parents driving who endanger their children even with seat belt laws.

You say "But when the gov't tells you have to do something for your own good, something is wrong"

Yes, I agree. I do not trust them to know what's best for me. Look at how many congressmen run their own lives. The thought of them deciding what is best for me is laughable.

"I'm kind of on the fence about the seat belt and helmet laws. In the case of seat belts since it's been shown to save lives, I suppose one argument is that if you choose not to wear one and die in an accident leaving behind children, society has to then take over care for those children."

If you accept that argument at face value, then anyone with dependents (how about elderly parents) can be ordered to follow any set of rules deemed by the Nanny State to improve your life expectancy. Stop smoking. No alcohol. No wait, one glass of wine lowers your blood pressure, so you must drink one glass of wine. No wait, if you have a history of liver disease in the family, disregard the wine-drinking requirement. And on and on.

"The other argument is that it increases automobile insurance costs for others. I don't see how an insurance company is going to give a discount for whether or not you wear a helmet or your seat belt. Do they monitor you all day and as soon as you don't wear it, your rate goes up? It's not practical. Even if they change your rate after you have an accident and it's discovered you were not wearing a seat belt or helmet, what do they do? change your rates? If you are dead, they may not pay out I suppose. Still seems to me to be difficult to implement."

Simplicity itself. If it turns out you weren't wearing a helmet or seat belts when you had an accident, the insurance company doesn't cover the expenses. Just like when the country started, and even before with fire fighters. Back then they weren't supported by taxes; each person paid the fire fighters just like you buy insurance today. If you didn't pay, and your house caught on fire, the fire fighters would come up to your house with their equipment, and serenely watch your property go up in smoke.

Excellent motivational value for those on the fence about buying fire protection.

emc_c

You make a good point about the nanny state, which i am not in favor of at all. I guess I am willing to put up with some government intervention (seat belts) as it's a trivial imposition to me or anyone else for that matter. I suppose that sets the stage for the government pushing for more.

If you want to ruin your health by smoking, then go right ahead. But don't ask me to put out money to care for you later. So if society is expected to cover your medical expenses because you were too ignorant, foolish, shortsighted, or irresponsible, then should not society then have some right in how to tell you to live your life? This is the crux of the problem. Society shouldn't have to bear the cost of stupidity of someone nor the right to keep that person from being stupid. But enter the children and things change. Is it fair to society to have to take care of a person's health when they didn't smoke, but have health problems because their parents did? I suspect if we got away from the state taking care of ever yon things might get sorted out on their own with a minor burden to the state to care for those damaged by negligent parents.

Interesting, I hadn't heard that statistic about smokers.

JBT,

You have it wrong, Society doesn't have to support all these people. Its govt mandates that requies us to treat people when they walk into emergency rooms.

How would you like to do your job for free because the govt requires it. People adapt, if everyone knew there was no free ride then everyone would cover their own A_s.

The constitution doesn't require it, and when people realize they can get a free ride they stop working, this is what happened to the USSR. Capitalism is harsh, if you don't swim you sink and die, but it is the only thing that works with humans. Socialism doesn't work, and the nanny state will ruin us.

what does this have to do with global warning? if we seek solutions by way of nanny state and loss of freedoms we will destroy America. Leave it alone and adapt.

JB, do you realize how much all those saftey features add to the price of a car or a house, do you have any idea what its like to be poor and have most of your paycheck disapear for someone eleses idea that you need. Let people choose their saftey features and pay for them. Thats free capitalism, otherwise the way we are going is socialism, cause it starts out small and creeps up and stangles productivity.

Actually, I do know what it's like to be poor. Let's take automobiles for first. The only two safety features that comes to mind which protect only the occupant are seat belts and airbags. The former is required by law the latter is not. The consumer has a choice with one of them already and insurance companies generally give a discount for those who have the latter. How much do seat belts add to the cost of a vehicle? How many of the other safety features would you like to let people have the choice to not have? Hey, I just won't drive in the rain and save myself the price of windshield wipers. Or I won't drive at night so I don't need head lights. And why have brake lights? I don't even see them when I stop. Yes, they increase the price of an automobile, but protect others. In general I am for giving people choice and taking it away from government. The point I'm trying to make is that it's not all bad. Had insurance companies not pushed for some features that save them money, perhaps you would be more in danger of being hit by someone else when going for a drive.

Regarding housing...that's more difficult for me to defend. I will give it some thought and reply later.

JB, you do realize that its basically imposible to get new a car w/o airbags because the govt threatened to pass a law so the car companys rolled over. You do realize the saftey features required by the govt for crash saftey doubles the cost of a car. Give me a 68 VW bug and let me take my chances. You do realize they were still made south of the border until a few years ago and cost brand new around $5k. I'll take a steel bumper and dashboard that lasts 40+ yrs and take my chances.

Now I'm not saying saftey features are bad, just do require then and let me pay for what I want and can afford. I you know what its like to be poor then you should know that alot of your meager income is take from you w/o your choice and I'm not talking about taxes.

How does this apply to global warming? again its about politicians making money, here in California we used to have a doposite on bottles of at least 5 cents, and all us kids would collect everyone we could find and things were cleaner. Then a person did a study and found that if the deposite was lowered to something around 3 cents it wouldn't be worth peoples time they wouldn't turn them in and the govt could keep the money, and the supermarkets wouldn't have to take them back, things got messier, and until the economy got really bad most people did't bother with them.

CO2 is a scam thought up by people that want power, control, and other peoples money.

It's been awhile since I was actively shopping for a vehicle, so no, I was not aware that airbags installed in virtually all cars. But is that true? You say virtually impossible...what does that mean? Less than 10% offer no airbags? Less than 30%? Or less than 1%? And is it true that the only reasons manufacturers have made air bags standard is because they caved into politicians? Or could it be a combination of that and the fact that it simplifies there assembly line to offer less variation in their product lines so they used the excuse of government threats as a means to be more productive? Honestly, I don't know....I'm just posing some possibilities. I don't think things are always so black and white. I generally come down on the side of least government interference, however, we live in a complex environment and I am suggesting that not all government intrusion is bad.

By the way, I am fortunate to have been born to the fantastic parents that instilled a value of hard work and education which has resulted in my income is no longer being meager.

You say "CO2 is a scam thought up by people that want power, control, and other peoples money ". That's how it appears to me as well.

So the Airline becomes the governing authority and it is okay with you that they tell you to put on your seatbelt.

"You don't have to patronize them."

You also do not necessarily have to live in any particular country or state.

However in the case of world wide environmental change, the problems cross borders.

I read a report about Steel and competition between the US Steel industry, and the Chinese Steel industry. Apparently a great deal of air pollution in California comes from China. Who, and what "Authority" might actually have the power to cause Chinese Steel manufacturers to operate in a manner that does not pollute California?

I have a very conservative friend who I interact with face to face, which is a bit different from some of our written interactions. While I believe in Global Warming, and Climate Change, and he is more of the same opinion you are, we are in agreement that poisoning of the planet is significant and ought to be inhibited.

By finding a way to agree, we end up not having to debate whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite, or not.

Capitalism does need to be regulated as we have seen illustrated by distortions in the Financial markets.

The history of the US is replete with instances where Corporations have taken unfair advantage and essentially benefited from what is often called Socialism for the rich.

There is a tradition of what I call Off Book Accounting, whereby Companies finagle the laws so they don't have to pay for what they use.

When in the US over time Companies have been pushed to pay for the use of shared resources, their reaction has been to move operations to places where they don't.

Often the US can say, "My Past is Your Future."

I could go on, and on, but what I am attempting to do is achieve here is to cut to the chase. At some point none of us really has to believe in Global Warming, or Climate Change for us all to get what we all want, which is a clean environment.

How to achieve that is going to require International laws and regulations which do have precedents.

So Okay, fine if you don't believe in Climate Change, or Global Warming. Can you agree that we share an interest in causing industries to operate cleanly simply to protect the environment?

Trans...,

Comparing ratings agencies of financially traded "things" to journalists who cover climate change....the ratings agencies have a fiduciary duty, and are legally prosecutable for breachs, Journalists have no fiduciary duty, both can and do have alterior motives, and agendas.

Spacecannon

I always fasten my seat belt, either in an airplane or an automobile. I do not, however, spend a great deal of time pondering whether these are true safety devices or some scam that was developed by seat belt manufacturers to sell more seat belts. I fasten my seat belt out of habit, and because, in the case of air travel, it is a lot less hassle than arguing with a flight attendant about the necessity for said action. It costs me nothing to fasten my seat belt.

"Climate Change", or "Global Warming", on the other hand, is being used to strip me of my hard-earned resources, in that it has become a "justification" for all sorts of scams (i.e., artificially sequestering CO2 or beaming solar energy from outer space) that suck resources from the common wealth that would be better directed at more reasonable approaches to future adaptation. The "science" behind global warming generally ignores the information from the first 4 billion years of earth's history, and tends to discount valid data that indicates fossil fuels are not the only culprit (i.e., data that clearly show "human impact" as much as 5000 years ago, theoretically resulting from deforestation for agricultural purposes).

It is pretty clear to me that this whole bruhaha is about the "haves" keeping what they have, by limiting the rest of the world's ability to catch up to the elevated life style enjoyed by the wealthier societies...

I am highly in favor of separation of government and the markets and of government and science, although I do believe there is a place for government to provide support of R&D in various fields....that possibly could be done via branches of the military funding weapons research or something along those lines.

I disagree with your statement 'The less complex a civilization, the more justification for authoritarian rule' . While that may be true of some, I don't think it's a function of complexity. I do agree simpler societies may be easier for an authoritarian ruler and certainly easier to see the result of good and/or bad decisions by such a ruler. Nevertheless, the people are still at the mercy of someone else making decisions for them....which is not a good thing (IMHO).

I do agree with you that because of our complex society, it is certainly impossible for one or a small group to fully understand the unintended consequences of laws and regulations. Also it's undesirable (to me anyway) for one person or a relatively small group of persons to have a lot of control. Milton Friedman covers this nicely in his book 'Capitalism and Freedom'.

I was not implying that authoritarianism is desirable at any level of human civilization, only that it is more feasible the simpler things get, whereas many make the argument that gov't intervention is more necessary the more complex things get. Quite the opposite is true.

Ancient Rome tired of their kings when they were small enough to be but one tribe occupying a small part of the Italian peninsula. SPQR - the Senate and the People of Rome then conquered the world over the next five or six centuries, before succumbing to authoritarian rule due to senatorial corruption.

But history doesn't repeat itself, nothing to worry about, la dee dah dee dah...

emc_c

CO2 is not a scam thought up by people that want power. CO2 is a gas that has an interesting but not unique absorption spectrum - it is almost completely transparent to visible light (like most of the light from our sun), but somewhat opaque to infrared. That's why we call it a greenhouse gas. This much at least is settled science. Most high school physics labs have all the equipment you would need to verify this finding. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and it would be foolish to blow our whole wad on this one factor, but it is one of the problems and should be addressed.

Global warming theory began, not as a plot to enslave us all by ruthless politicians, but by a scientist (Dr. Hansen) trying to explain why Venus is so much hotter than Earth. The different amounts of incoming solar radiation due tho the different orbital distances was no where near enough to be the cause. The high concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the Venuitian atmosphere, including CO2, offered an explanation.

So feel free to argue that global warming is a scam thought up by unscrupulous scientists and politicians with some dark motive, and I'll feel free to argue that global warming denial is a scam thought up by the fossil fuel industry for...well what possible motive could they have to lie?

Interesting graph. I guess that proves that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared, and the physicists that have measured its absorption spectrum are incompetent or liars. Do you have a graph explaining why Venus is so hot?

The earth's climate is not a slave to CO2 levels. Clearly there are other factors, many of them beyond the control of humans. I don't see any lines for them on the graph. But if for some reason you want to try raising a planet's temperature, pumping green house gasses into the atmosphere is probably one of the most efficient ways to do that. Intentionally or not that is the experiment we are conducting with our planet. Maybe the universe is throwing us a bone that just happens to cancel out the warming effects of these green house gasses. How lucky for us.

I don't consider the Venus issue a red herring, but as the point of origin of the global warming theory. I first encountered it ~1980, in an article by Dr. Hansen (probably in Scientific American), where he described this findings from the Mariner mission. To me, the argument that this is irrelevant is like arguing that Darwin's visit to the Galapagos has no relation to the theory of evolution. I'm sorry if that seems pedantic, naive, or disingenuous to you, but I didn't catch a whiff of communist conspiracy in his article. I smelled excitement, concern, and honest scientific inquiry.

I agree that your graph is interesting, in that it shows that the planet can warm up while CO2 levels are dropping, or cool down when CO2 is increasing. I think we have both observed that there are many other factors at work. The graph gives no hints about cloud cover, solar flux, etc., and we would be hard pressed to reconstruct all these other 'lines' to see just what mitigating factors were involved in the deep past. Since we have access to our current environment, we have a much better chance of untangling these other factors. Will scientists miss something? Of course they will. Will they identify and measure the big stuff? I think so.

I have some doubts about many aspects of the theory that have developed since 1980, and am sane enough to know not to expect absolute certainty or proof from science (except that I'm almost positive that green house gasses work as advertized). I expect to find levels of probability. That to me is science. But if you and many others in this tread assert that global warming theory is junk science, and has been hijacked by communists and others bent on the destruction of modern civilization, I doubt that as well because it is the least probable explanation. I think commies and other crazies latch on to popular subjects to try and gain traction and relevance, in the same way that LaRouche seizes on current trends to support his pathetic career.

I'm pretty sure that Global warming began as honest science. I don't see that the same can be said of the deniers, who are in my mind essentially the PR arm of the fossil fuel industry. In terms of probability, it seems very likely that the politicization of the debate began with the fossil fuel industry in an effort to protect their investments and profits. It seem very improbable that a bunch of communists decided to infiltrate the scientific community, and to get jobs at NASA and NOAA to destroy civilization.

So if as you and others have suggested that this debate has become so politicized that we can't trust what anybody is saying, then I suggest that we listen to voices that have not been contaminated by the debate: the flowers, birds, bees, etc., who don't know or care what humans are talking about. Their 'opinions' on global warming, and its impact on their lives were come by honestly.

So if our wildlife tells us that something's wrong in Denmark, and if the vast majority of scientists say the same thing, I'm inclined to agree with them. If the fossil fuel industry (who wants what's in my wallet) say otherwise, I'm inclined to treat them with deep suspicion, bordering at times on absolute contempt.

Dear Anonymous Hero,

I ended up going to the BP site to see what they were up to.

Suggest you nose around there.

Here is one quote from the BP site: "BP accepts the findings of the intergovernmental panel on climate change."

Anonymous Hero to the rescue, GA, where can I get a copy of that graph, its source and supporting documentation. I'd like to place a full page ad in the L.A. times.

Spacecannon

The source is listed in the caption below the graph. Just search the web on that study.

Global Warming. Welcome to the new world religion. Al Gore and President Obama are the new Jim Jones. Kool-Aid anyone?

"I'll feel free to argue that global warming denial is a scam thought up by the fossil fuel industry for...well what possible motive could they have to lie?"

I can't (wouldn't anyway, since I dont' trust ANY of them) argue that with you. I merely say, loudly, and long, that the evidence for Global Warming HERE ON OUR EARTH is not in yet! The paperwork AIN'T done yet! So making panicky rules and regs about it all over the earth, and costing so many of us so much (yes, especially in the well-developed USA) is a bad idea.

I am adamant about this not least because the politicians (and, yep, a lot of scientists who know where the butter sticks, too) are involved in it NOT because it is an imminent danger (I don't think it is, BUT, see my opening comments. The knife cuts both ways, and the data that might tend to demonstrate, if not prove, either side is not well-enough collected/collated/processed/understood/tested/reviewed/agreed upon!) but because it stands to gain them something they want at whatever cost, from any source. It might be political power, it might be grant (or election! NO, it couldn't be that!!) money, and it might be prestige for having been "in on the ground floor" (that last, in Academia, is a pernicious driver of unethical behaviour, but that is another thread entirely) of something ground-shaking, earth-breaking (or NOT) or otherwise new, and, in the public's eye, "Gee'Whiz" enough to feed a worldwide ego.

OR, it might be that they scientists involved really, truly believe in what they are preaching. In fact, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. They DO believe. But it still doesnt' make them right, and it still doesn't prove the point. Which is where we started.

THE DATA ARE NOT IN YET!! DO THE HOMEWORK, HERE, WHERE WE LIVE!! THEN TELL THE WORLD IT HAS TO CHANGE IT'S SPOTS. And if you can't prove it, shut up, go back to the lab, do the homework, write up the labs and the logbooks, and the PUBLISH YOUR DATA FOR PEER REVIEW.

Or are you chicken to do so? Can't let the data that exists see the light of day? Obviously some were chicken, and couldn't let that happen.

Micah

"PUBLISH YOUR DATA FOR PEER REVIEW." Ah, but if your data contradicts "conventional wisdom", how do you go about getting it published in peer review venus??? There have been a number of instances (probably some valid, some not so valid) where "scientists" have been unable to get their views on Global Warming because they dared to challenge conventional wisdom...

This post is an example of the type of science that can't stand to see the light of day. The percentage of CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere is 96%. The percentage of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is 380 ppm. The relative concentration ratio is 2500:1. Extrapolating Earth to Venus is a bit of a stretch...

emc_c

Guest:

I sure wish you'd signed in, so I could give you a GA. This whole debate is a glowing example of trying to put too much responsibility for decision making where it hits us on a science that has little to do with where it hits us.

And your ratiometric example so clearly points it out. Even if (When? OK, WHEN) scientists agree that WE are warming the earth (or maybe not US. Causality doesn't really matter to whether we have to fix it, since we can't point to inanimate earth and blame it, then say it has to fix itself.), we still have time to find the RIGHT way to fix it.

And the entire world's politicians, US LEADING, have absolutely no business thinking THEY have what it takes to figure out the best way to fix it.

On the other hand, I have too many fellows among the scientific community who find nothing wrong with euthanasia, merely disagreeing on who should be allowed to live, to want to trust the running of the world to scientists.

I think we need to throw all the scientists back in their labs and shut the doors, locking them from the outside. Send in supplies, keep them working, and let them out only when they have something to say that we don't have to spank them for. But shoot all the politicians. Then let the uninformed public elect their own new representatives, and let THEM argue about the solutions.

With any luck, the whole bunch of them will be so busy trying to find their "power base" (Whatever THAT is) that they won't get anything done, and will leave us all alone for a century or so. Then we'll have to clean em out again, and start over. Keeps the thinking fresh, though.

The physics of what has happened to Venus, and what may be happening on Earth are the same: green house gasses pass visible light and partially block infrared. We will almost certainly not see temperature like 900 deg F here on earth, because as you point out our concentration is much lower. But concentration only influences the magnitude of the effect, not the direction.

Increased concentrations of green house gasses will result in more heat being trapped. Concentrations are increasing, and temperatures are rising. Whether there are other mitigating factors (clearly there are) is a separate issue. There is just no rational basis to assume that the complex interplay of these other factors will somehow cancel the green house effect. But if you or I don't know what they all are, and how the various feedback loops work, then we would be making a 'faith based' choice if we decided not to clean up the mess we are creating, in the hope that some unknown process will save us. Granted incomplete science is a poor basis for public policy, but it is certainly better than a belief in luck.

The conditions for green house gas induced global warming are in place. Green house gasses are increasing, and they work as advertized. If you want to argue that other factors will mitigate the process, then from my point of view the burden of proof is not on Roger Pink. The onus is on you to identify these factors, show how these individual processes work, and that their combined magnitude is similar to the warming caused by the green house gasses. Otherwise the sensible choice is to reduce fossil fuel use.

Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. We are past science, and past engineering, and we are now into logic. Very basic logic; or more accurately, illogic.

What is being sold here is that GW proponents have identified one physical process by which global warming can happen, and although there is no way to quantify the effect accurately, the burden of proof is on everyone else to show that it isn't a problem.

In other words, the burden of proof is on the skeptics to prove that man isn't causing global warming.

One cannot prove a negative. That is why, in courts of law, at least the English common law heritage is that a man is innocent until proven guilty; he does not have to establish his innocence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt.

Not that it is necessary, but if you needed any more evidence that this whole man-made GW scam is purely politics, this is it. This is the same logic by which the US Senate took up an investigation of Vice President George W. Bush (Bush I) sometime after Reagan became president, and there were (totally unfounded) rumors that VP Bush had traveled to Iran prior to the election to encourage the Iraqis to hold onto the embassy hostages until after the election, to help Reagan win. Mind you not a shred of evidence, but the Democrat majority Senate invoked hearings because "the seriousness of the charges outweighed the lack of evidence," or words to that effect. It was obviously a political attack, but that was the cover for it.

Ditto here. A political attack, justified with illogic.

emc_c

Well put Guest! and now Obama wants to use Govt agencies to further this travesty. (NASA and NOAA) not to mention that the head of NOAA is biased...

We have had snow on the ground here for almost 3 months... and now 49 out of 50 states in the US have seen snow fall! So now they say it is because of too much moisture in the air... causing extreme weather conditions. Talk about loading the dice for a win win scenario....

" But if you or I don't know what they all are, and how the various feedback loops work"-

How can you assure me that your tweaking of a complex system, the weather, which you seem to admit you do not fully understand, will not result in too great a correction; i.e., how do you know that if you take all that CO2 out of the atmosphere, you won't induce a new ice age? I suspect an ice age would be far more devastating to humans and other life on earth than the projected global warming. Walk in to a conventional steam plant one of these days and start tweaking valves at random, without a full understanding of what they do. What do you think is going to happen (assuming security doesn't sequester you before you go too far!).

If you are going to tweak, you better be pretty d****d sure you know what you are doing...

Concur...

People also produce urine and feces. Want some? We probably all ingest microscopic amounts of urine and feces every day, and we do just fine, but take a big bite of that chode and you'll be sick at both ends, and probably end up ingesting a little more.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide. All the carbon in the world came from super nova explosions that occurred long ago, and almost all of it is still here. Carbon in the form of coal, carbonaceous rocks, or fossil fuel, deep in the ground is no threat. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, at levels that plants and animals are accustomed to is not a problem. Without it we wouldn't be here to talk about it. We would freeze if we didn't starve first. CO2 is a green house gas (not by any means the only one), and at 'normal' levels it helps keep the plants growing to feed us, and warm enough that we don't need to be born wearing space suits. But increase the levels a little bit and things will warm up a little bit. Increase it a lot and things will warm up a lot. Increase it still more and we will suffocate. Some CO2 is a good thing. Too much CO2 is a poison.

Global warming theory did not begin with Al Gore, or with some communist conspiracy. It began with a NASA scientist (Mariner Venus Project - 1979) trying to explain why Venus was so much warmer compared to Earth than its distance from the sun could explain. Dr. Hansen's explanation was that the high levels of green house gasses in the Venutian atmosphere trapped the heat. I don't know the man personally, so I am in no position to vouch for his motives, but I would think that a man like him with a superior education and a job working for the government of a great nation, who had the opportunity to play with some of the most amazing toys in history (built and paid for by that government with our taxes) would not be much inclined to kill the goose that dropped that golden egg in his lap.

It is the easiest thing in the world to impune other people's motives. I could for example say that you are obviously a paid lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry, pretending to be a Christian, and posting here to protect the power and profits of your employer. I won't do that. I will assume that you came by your conclusions honestly. But you are still incorrect. CO2 is vital to life, and it is also poison.