http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

Who writes that sort of quasi-philosophical claptrap? We're not talking about King Canute here.

This Danish scientist looks like he's done some good research. It deserves investigation. In the mean time we have to work on the 90% likelihood and not the 10%. We need to protect our climate as the risks are far too serious to ignore.

If there was a serious expiriment about global warming not being man made and dangerous - it would be featured in a peer reviewed magaziene, not in a Rupert Murdoch rag

The key phrase in the article (the small bit that's real information, not speculation and mumbo-jumbo):The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.is flatly wrong. This table (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt) shows mean global land temperature variations above a baseline, in units of 0.01° C, measured by year and month, with the annual average in the column just after the months:1999 55 75 35 33 35 54 51 44 42 43 49 35 46 49 67 34 50 44 1999
2000 14 61 47 63 41 55 45 49 40 23 37 31 42 43 36 51 50 33 2000

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2001 51 54 61 41 61 58 58 59 59 50 76 63 58 55 46 54 58 62 2001
2002 84 82 99 78 74 53 74 58 63 58 63 46 69 71 76 84 61 61 2002
2003 79 68 61 60 74 51 54 78 71 76 59 77 67 65 64 65 61 69 2003
2004 61 85 78 67 44 51 20 56 54 72 76 61 60 62 74 63 42 67 2004
2005 87 77 87 79 66 74 67 66 87 88 76 73 77 76 75 77 69 84 2005
2006 56 76 65 61 41 64 60 70 67 80 72 79 66 65 68 56 64 73 2006
2007 108*********************************************** ******** ********* ******************** 2007
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON YearHere (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt) is a table showing the land-ocean temperature index, for the same period:1999 40 60 27 27 21 36 30 28 26 31 32 33 33 34 50 25 31 30 1999
2000 17 51 46 53 29 36 33 38 32 20 26 21 33 34 34 43 36 26 2000

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2001 38 41 54 39 52 47 51 46 49 44 67 51 48 46 33 48 48 53 2001
2002 71 70 83 59 57 47 57 45 49 50 52 37 56 57 64 66 50 50 2002
2003 65 51 51 49 51 39 48 63 60 66 50 69 55 52 51 50 50 59 2003
2004 53 67 59 52 37 33 22 44 47 59 64 51 49 50 63 49 33 57 2004
2005 69 56 71 65 55 60 55 57 69 72 64 59 63 62 58 64 57 69 2005
2006 44 58 56 47 43 53 44 58 56 63 61 71 54 53 53 49 52 60 2006
2007 89************************************************ ******* ********* ******************** 2007
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON YearNo overall change since 1999, my ass.

The rest of the article is just speculation and FUD. Yes, global warming is a theory, and it could be wrong, but you can say that about anything. It's the best explanation of what we see today, by far.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10773

Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.

I'm not saying we should take his word for it or anything. There is a political adgenda for forwarding Kyoto, Soon you will see a global tax, supporting a one world government. In which the tax paid will do nothing to actualy reverse global warming. From what I understand even if we followed everything it would only reduce the earths temperature by .15 degrees over 100 years.

Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.

2500 educated scientists providing every bit of their data to whomever wants it for peer review.. Maybe, just maybe, their political views stand just a teeeeensy bit of a chance of being weeded out should it have tainted the research?

I think it's disgusting that it's becoming acceptable to imply that someone's work by default gets "tainted" should said someone actually possess political opinions. Having opinions about society should be encouraged, not presented as a hindrance to people's crafts. And allegations such as the one made above should be met with a demand to back it up or take the moronic statements and implications and shove it.

(I have the flu, I am cranky. Sue me.)

From what I understand even if we followed everything it would only reduce the earths temperature by .15 degrees over 100 years.

Sorry double post, but am I to understand that you:
1. Don't give a **** if it takes too long to fix
and/or
2. are too dumb to realize that every .15 degrees is exactly as enormous as the .15 degrees from .075 above to .075 below freezing is?

(yup, still cranky)

http://newsbusters.org/node/10773



I'm not saying we should take his word for it or anything. There is a political adgenda for forwarding Kyoto, Soon you will see a global tax, supporting a one world government. In which the tax paid will do nothing to actualy reverse global warming. From what I understand even if we followed everything it would only reduce the earths temperature by .15 degrees over 100 years.


And doing nothing might raise the earth's temperature by as much as 2 to 5 degrees, globally, on average.

At the high end of the prediction that is as much as the difference between having an ice age and not having an ice age. The big problem is that people think they can imagine what an ice age would mean for their lives, but have no clear concept of the effects of higher average temperatures from today. Generally when people think warmer they think vacation, which is not exactly something to worry about.

It does not help that we still can not predict, or even model, accurately, what the effect of significantly higher temperartures will be so we can not produce a compelling and convincing argument why allowing rampant tempereature rise is a bad idea.


Eri

There is a political adgenda for forwarding Kyoto, Soon you will see a global tax, supporting a one world government. In which the tax paid will do nothing to actualy reverse global warming. From what I understand even if we followed everything it would only reduce the earths temperature by .15 degrees over 100 years.

Kyoto is pretty much dead and way out of date. It's only now a yardstick of what could have been. A new better treaty should be negotiated which reflects our better understanding. It now needs to includes China and India.

Any tax is not going to disappear into global coffers. National green taxes will be replacing other national taxes and will be used to pay for national spending. All developed nations should be able to meet any emissions targets and shouldn't be paying any international penatlies. This isn't about revenue collection, it's about the environment.

Kyoto was ever only meant to be the first step. It was never meant to be a complete fix. The fact that we haven't taken any steps forward on global emissions is pretty shameful.

Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so.Do you really expect to be taken seriously, with that opening line?

well, given the kinds of people that the conspiracy subculture think are "serious scienctists"... I can see how Swiftfox would believe that none believe in global warming.

Conspiracies aside, the mistake I think that often comes up when the global warming thread is restarted is that it becomes a binary issue. People think that either you agree that global warming is real and want to do something about it or that you disagree that global warming is real and therefore want to do nothing to clean up anyway.

Often, I've found the case to be that there are those who don't think global warming is as dire as its made out to be but regardless, would love to do something to keep the environment clean, even if it is a just-in-case situation.

well, in some instances it is a binary issue.

Either it exists (as in being effect/man made, and being detrimental) or it doesnt.

and either we should do something about it or we shouldn't.

I agree somewhat though - although I strongly beleive its real, and that we should take significant action, I don't think the world will end in 20 years or whatever.

I agree somewhat though - although I strongly beleive its real, and that we should take significant action, I don't think the world will end in 20 years or whatever.Neither do the global warming scientists. In the IPCC report, they give a range of possible outcomes, and I don't believe any make reference to an Apocalypse.

wasn't talking about this report, but about how the debate can lead to hyperbole.

You're right though, most mainstream (in the science world) things i've read do not talk about world ending events, but rather varying degrees of bad things)

The End of the World, no realy.

But the end of the world as we know it, probably.

When a city will have been destroyed a few time by ouragan, or under 1 metre of water; you will se a lot of migration, and when human move in large number, you see huge change in a society (and almost nothing can stop it).

Eridalafar

Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously, with that opening line?"

I never made that statement. The Czech president did.

The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html)
The little ice age in Europe (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html)
AN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING
IS POLITICS NOT SCIENCE
(http://www.etherzone.com/2007/bend021307.shtml)
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.

End of my spam linking. If these scientists are being paid to come up with results that support the thoery of global warming then it's not unbiased. In fact even if they suspect that is the answer expected they, like anyone voting between Coke and Pepsi would claim they like Pepsi better since it resulted in the free chocolate bar.(More mon-ay)

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist.That statement is by Timothy Ball, a retired professor.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_BallDr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1]

Previously, Ball has been identified as a Canadian climate change sceptic who is a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [2] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian think tank. [3] Who are "Friends of Science"?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_ScienceThe Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1]

In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry. [2] [3] The funny thing is, Swiftfox, there is a conspiracy going on, and people are being paid to spout biased opinions. Except it's not the conspiracy you think it is, and the money is not flowing in the direction you think it's flowing.

By the way, I wouldn't hype up Timothy Ball too much. He also claims that the Earth has really been cooling since 1940, and, well, all that temperature data gathered by NASA and other world scientists is just plain wrong, somehow.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

See over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals (http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm)) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.


The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

I like what the petition is about



We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Copyright 2001 © OISM


oreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


Any scienctist worth there salt would know that you can't just have "substantial" benefits in some enviroments via something on the global scale, without detrimental effects on other enviroments.

Furthermore "cause catastrophic heating" - is highly subjective, - it may very well not be catastrophic by many peoples definitions... finally

look at the date

Copyright 2001 © OISM - 6 years ago - Science and evidence has changed and mounted significantly in the last six years...

As for the breakdown?

BS really doesn't mean anything (espcially when not in a field directly related)
asters and PhD are obviously more impressive, but again, unless its in Climatology or something similiar.. really who cares?
and even someone with a PhD, in climatology.... yea you may have a few papers under your belt, a PhD alone doesn't make you an expert in the field. One needs to have substantial work published, or definate proof etc.

Degrees mean you went to College and Grad School

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htmThat petition has no bearing on the issue of global warming today.

It was created in the late 90s directly in response to the Kyoto protocols, a politically charged issue. Alleged signatories only agreed that greenhouse gases won't cause "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," not that global warming doesn't exist. Anyone could sign it, including non-scientists and scientists on the oil industry payroll.

The accompanying report (http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm#36), dated 1998, is flawed and outdated. It claims that "during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have fallen," which is flatly wrong if you look at today's historical temperature data, or even the data available at the time. It also ignores critical data (which may not have even been available back then), such as the ice core data which establishes the important historical levels of CO₂ and temperature.

Finally, many of the signatures were likely bogus, and of those people that can still be found today, most have changed their mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition#SignatoriesIn 2005, Scientific American reported: [8]

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:[9]

In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?In a nutshell, that petition is irrelevant.

I never made that statement.

Yes, you did. You posted it right here. Now stop linkspamming, and address the questions you've been asked and comments that have been made to your statements.

LOL!

LOL!

Right, that'll convince people and make them see your point of view.

You need to learn how to cuss people out, Swiftfox.

and even someone with a PhD, in climatology.

...and even someone with a PhD in climatology is still just a weatherman.

And we all know how right they are, don't we.

...and even someone with a PhD in climatology is still just a weatherman.Learn the difference between climatology and meteorology.

Are you saying that one is more accurate than the other?

If not, then it does not make a difference.

He or she is still a weatherman, or weatherperson, whether they are one or the other.

Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.
-Mark Twain

And I expect climatologists to be more wrong than weathermen, and I expect those to be wrong most of the time. Because they are.

Are you saying that one is more accurate than the other?They are two completely different things.

Predicting the exact weather conditions tomorrow is a far more speculative venture than charting a global warming trend for the past 50 years.

eteorologists who predict tomorrow's weather don't claim to be 100% accurate; the model is too complex for our current technology to analyze. They will just tell you what the probability of rain is, not definitively whether it will rain or not.

Both fields deal with atmospheric sciences, but that's about the only similarity.

...but that's about the only similarity.
Well, besides their shared high degree of predictive inaccuracy.


Dude, you have to remember that I grew up in California. A state which has had a drought year virtually every third year of my life.

The same state which opens up its reservoir dam gates full bore even during these drought years, in order to increase the price of water that it sells to cities and farms.

Pardon my skepticism, but these people do not have a good record on predicting anything accurately. Strike that, replace the word good with any.

Which is fine by me, I am going to be made rich with my CO2 reclamation schemes, based on their predictions. So I don't care one way or another, really. If you all want to be lied to, and accept it, I don't think I really care.

Well, besides their shared high degree of predictive inaccuracy.Which climatologists studying long-term atmospheric trends have had a high degree of predictive inaccuracy, when it comes to future long term trends? Give me an example.

In case you haven't noticed, the climatologists aren't trying to predict whether it will rain in London on November 2, 2067, or whether 2073 will have a lot of rain, compared to 2072 or 2074. They're talking about long-term trends, averages over decades, which is much easier to predict.If you all want to be lied to, and accept it, I don't think I really care.You're starting to sound like Swiftfox. Prove I'm being lied to.

An astounding documentary that was broadcast in the UK last night completely trounced the man-made explanation for global warming, not with emotionally-laden propaganda or by attacking the messenger as its adherants resort to, but by presenting carefully considered and rational science.

The Great Global Warming Swindle brought together a plethora of scientists, professors, climatologists and weather experts to expose the myths about climate change that have been promulgated in order to hoodwink the world into accepting the man-made theory of global warming.


The Great Climate Swindle Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Aetu6MQJuI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Einfowars%2Ecom%2Farticles% 2Fscience%2Fglobal%5Fwarming%5Fdoc%5Ftrounces%5Fma n%5Fmade%5Fwarming%5Fhoax%2Ehtm)

The Great Climate Swindle Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-LPN9PkLK4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Einfowars%2Ecom%2Farticles% 2Fscience%2Fglobal%5Fwarming%5Fdoc%5Ftrounces%5Fma n%5Fmade%5Fwarming%5Fhoax%2Ehtm)

^ Ice core sample information shows CO2 increases trail warmth by about 800 years. Indicating that increased CO2 emmisions are not the cause but the result of "Global Warming"

The Great Climate Swindle Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri4ZsyF2dDI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Einfowars%2Ecom%2Farticles% 2Fscience%2Fglobal%5Fwarming%5Fdoc%5Ftrounces%5Fma n%5Fmade%5Fwarming%5Fhoax%2Ehtm)

^ The Sun is responsible.

The Great Climate Swindle...made by filmmaker Martin Durkin.

What other great documentaries has he made?

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.eceMartin Durkin, for his part, achieved notoriety when his previous series on the environment for the channel, called Against Nature , was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading contributors on the purpose of the programmes, and for editing four interviewees in a way that "distorted or mispresented their known views".

Channel 4 was forced to issue a humiliating apology. But it seems to have forgiven Mr Durkin and sees no need to make special checks on the accuracy of the programme. For his part, the film-maker accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as "complete tosh."http://www.lobbywatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=38&page=1&op=2In October 1998, a television producer named Martin Durkin took a proposal to the BBC's science series, Horizon. Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast cancer. Horizon commissioned a researcher to find out whether or not his assertion was true.

After a thorough review, the researcher reported that Mr Durkin had ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his claims.

artin Durkin withdrew his proposal. Instead of dropping it, however, he took it to Channel 4 and, astonishingly, sold it to their science series, Equinox. To help him make the programme, Durkin hired Najma Kazi, a highly respected TV researcher and producer who was previously a research biochemist. After two weeks she walked out. "It's not a joke to walk away from four or five months' work," she told me, "but my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that's not the case. I don't know how that programme got passed. The only consolation for me was that I'm really glad I didn't put my name to it."

But the programme was broadcast, in May last year. Silicone implants, it insisted, appeared to reduce the incidence of breast cancer. Women claiming that their operations had caused severe health problems were dismissed as cranks, malingerers and compensation-chasers. The researchers who believed that there was a problem were accused of practising "junk science". Which "experts" speak in his documentary?

http://theblackkettle.blogspot.com/2007/03/climatologist-tim-balls-star-on-rise.htmlDr. Tim Ball, whose Canada Free Press column. "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?" was posted by the Drudge Report ion Feb. 5, is one of the eminent scientists quoted in the documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to be aired in Britain on Channel 4.com/science this Thursday.I've already explained who Tim Ball is. And he's among the more respected "experts" presented on the program.

This "documentary" is a joke. I wonder if BP and ExxonMobil are getting free ad time, or if Mr. Durkin is getting a check directly.

You're starting to sound like Swiftfox. Prove I'm being lied to

Proving you're being lied to is a strawman, since, lying would imply that the vast majority of scientists that shrilly scream "Global warming! Global warming! Tear down the coal power plants!" don't really believe what they are saying.

I have a different methodology of proof. I say that "most" of the scientists that say that, knowing full well that their scientific reputations are on the line, truly believe the horrors they are predicting.

However, when the data keeps coming in, and piling up, eventually the honest and sincere scientists will admit to the non-correlation of several scientific studies, and "revise" their "climate models", which is as close as you will ever get a scientist to admit they are wrong.

Scientists can never truly admit error, of course. If scientists just came out and said, "I was completely wrong about this.", why then, would anyone ever listen to them again? They could be wrong again! And we know that the conclusions of science are as graven law.

(Side note: No rational person ever questions scientific facts once the majority of scientists have agreed upon them, else you will be labeled an irrational freak, who believes in FET, Bigfoot, mental spoon bending, Elvis sightings, and quite possibly beats his wife and molests his dog.)

Pressing on, there is one scientist who has bravely swallowed his pride, and has admitted the data is not following the global warming climatological models they had predicted. And doubly surprising, he's French.

Side note #2: Following the long standing nature of needling the French here, "bravely stepping forward" and "French" do not make sense when put together in the same sentence. :p

Joking aside, this article quoting the father of global warming, Dr. Claude Allegre, one of the first scientists to ever sound warnings about it, is an excellent read.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Choice quotes include:

Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming. .
With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

And in a surprising echo of Fyyr's quote earlier:

Which is fine by me, I am going to be made rich with my CO2 reclamation schemes, based on their predictions. So I don't care one way or another, really. If you all want to be lied to, and accept it, I don't think I really care.

We have this quote from the article:
Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."
Bolded for emphasis.

The question should be: Is Fyyr going to be making an IPO with his company? :p

I see. So when scientists believe in global warming, they're just covering their own asses, regardless of the data that supports their theory. But when even one scientist disagrees, he's the brave and honest savior, regardless of what the data says.

A wee bit biased, aren't we?

Global warming is a theory. It has supporters, and, like any theory, it's going to have detractors, too. And the greater the number of supporters, the greater the incentive to become a detractor, as it means instant fame and money (via the oil companies and their "think tanks").

Personally, I judge the theory according to the strength of the data and reasoning, not an opinion poll. And the popular theory is currently the best explanation for why the planet has been warming for decades.

If you have more convincing data and arguments (not idle speculation), I'll listen to it too.However, when the data keeps coming in, and piling up,Are you suggesting that this will happen, because thus far, it hasn't happened.

And if you're sure that this will happen, I'd like to borrow your crystal orb and use it to sort out my stock portfolio. Handy device, that orb.

And the popular theory is currently the best explanation for why the planet has been warming for decades.

Another Ice Age?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.

an, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

You aren't seriously comparing one speculative Time article from 1974 to the evidence we have today, are you?

Without a time machine, the data that the climatologists had in 1974 that went back 3 decades is the same data for the same period of time that the climatologists have now. No?

Does your data now show the dip in mean global temperatures between 1940 and 1974 that the climatologists say happened? If not, how did the climatologists today come up with new numbers?

Whatever your point about temperature measurements in the 1940's Fyyr it doesn't change the fact that the earth's temperature is now rising faster than at any time in the planet's measured history.

Does your data now show the dip in mean global temperatures between 1940 and 1974 that the climatologists say happened?No. It shows that 1940 itself (which was during a period of 2-3 slightly hotter years) was warmer than 1974. In between, the temperature was mostly stable (with a few cooler years, a few warmer years), and really started to take off in the mid 1970s.

Randomly comparing the mean temperature of two years (separated by a span of 34 years) and declaring that a 0.18° C differential is a harbinger of an ice age is, well, stupid.

Comparing the strength of that conclusion to today's conclusions about global warming is even sillier.

I did not do the stupid thing.

I was just reporting it.

2.7F is not .18C either. It is 1.5C.

y point is that the data at 1974 for the past decades(at that point in time) is the very same data now, from 1974 for the 30 years prior.

The data then was that the globe was cooling. Unless one can go back in time and take new measurements, the data is the same data. But that is not reflected now, of course. Your data today says that that time period was warming.

How can that be? You have already acknowledged in previous posts(and I believe very correctly) that ice core data is not precise or accurate at only decades chunks of time; it may be correct in thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years (or million year)chunks.

Remember these are the same type of people(and possibly the very same people) you give such enormous credence to today, climatologists and meterologists (weathermen). They are the same people.

You also have to remember that in 1974, that the EPA was only 3 years old. And there were NO(or few) smog or emissions laws on the books, this was the very height of vehicular and industrial pollution(in the US). Yet it was cooling at the time, the climatologists and scientists said so.

Whatever your point about temperature measurements in the 1940's Fyyr it doesn't change the fact that the earth's temperature is now rising faster than at any time in the planet's measured history.

From the 1940s to the 1970s.

Not the difference between the two.

Subtle difference, unless I read the article wrong.

Climatologists said that between 1940 and 1974 that the mean global temperature went down 1.5C.

Climatologists said that between 1940 and 1974 that the mean global temperature went down 1.5C.Then they should check their thermometers, because according to NASA, the difference between the mean global temperatures in 1940 and 1974 was 0.18° C, or 0.12° C if you look at the land-ocean index.

Unless you think NASA is now rewriting their temperature databases to conform to the great global warming conspiracy.

Oh and you should check the sentence right after the 2.7° F statement: "Although that figure is at best an estimate..." Some writer at Time probably made it up; there's not even a citation to a reference or authority.Yet it was cooling at the time, the climatologists and scientists said so.An article in Time magazine said so. Show me who these "climatologists and scientists" were, where they got their data, and how they reasoned their conclusions. Unless you can, it's the just the opinion of a newspaper writer, who wants to sell a good story.

I mean, I could point you to scientists today who think the planet is really cooling (and we just don't know how to read thermometers), such as Tim Ball, Swiftfox's hero. That doesn't mean it's correct.

You also have to remember that in 1974, that the EPA was only 3 years old. And there were NO(or few) smog or emissions laws on the books, this was the very height of vehicular and industrial pollution(in the US).Pollution and greenhouse gases are two different things, although they are typically caused by the same activities.

Greenhouse gas emissions, which have been steadily on the rise in the United States, are much higher now than they were in the 70s. Here are the emissions from coal power plants, one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases:

<img src=http://www.pewclimate.org/images/us-co2-electricf.gif>

Here are the emissions from oil combustion (i.e., cars):

<img src=http://www.pewclimate.org/images/co2-emissions-oil.gif>

That's not surprising, since we're driving more than we have ever before:

<img src=http://www.pewclimate.org/images/vmt.gif>

And the United States accounts for less than a third of the total world emissions. China has been spewing out so much pollution and greenhouse gas with its industrial revolution, they will overtake the United States this year or the next as the grossest polluter. In 1974, they were barely a blip on the radar:

<img src=http://images.wri.org/chart_chinachart2.gif>

Same for India, which is right behind China today:

<img src=http://earthtrends.wri.org/images/country_profiles/cp_CLI_85_chart4.gif>

In terms of greenhouse gases, as a planet we are in far worse shape today than we were in the 1970s.

http://www.alumnifriends.mines.edu/photo_gallery/2003/hon_degree_medal_200305/bryson.htm

One climatologist quoted in the article.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2005/Jan.%208.htm




After digging into this guy a little deeper,,,,
Honestly, I expected this guy to have changed his tune and switched to being a global warming specialist.

Just scanning his Google, my expectations were wrong...
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-40,GGGL:en&q=Reid+A.+Bryson

I guess he was bought by EXXON, back in 1974?
Or is he just the lunatic fringe?

And digging is too strong of a word, I did a google, and skimmed some of the hits is all.

So one scientist has some personal views on global warming. Why do you want to believe his opinions from 30 years ago rather than the opinions of the bulk of climatologists today using moden data and techniques?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don't want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

....

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore's portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

...

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

...

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I'm not a Republican.”



http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2006/06/13/global_warming_fever

There are a number of well-known scientists who don't believe that global warming is human-induced, or who believe that if it is, it is not catastrophic. Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years. Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, told The Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax." Climate scientist Robert Lindzen of MIT believes that clouds and water vapor will counteract greenhouse gas emissions.

....

I thought Gore's chart comparing carbon-dioxide increases to temperature spikes was dramatic. But because Gore omits what he does not want to see, I have to listen to former NASA scientist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, when he tells me: "It is an alarming chart, but there are so many alternative explanations for what he's showing. He's giving it one possible explanation and making it sound like the only explanation." Spencer says it is "more likely" that the higher temperatures increased carbon dioxide levels.

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore's portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.No, the report actually said (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676):There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added."Lower confidence" is not the same as a contradiction. And this is just one data source.Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century."That depends on which data source you look at, and how you interpret it. If you average them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png), the statement is false. If you cherry pick the data that supports your preformed conclusion, there are higher temperatures (but not 20).

Also, the issue is not just the maximum temperature, but the rate of shift of the temperature. When temperature increases slowly, over hundreds or thousands of years, species have time to adapt. But today, those swings are occurring in a matter of years or a few decades, and many species cannot keep up.Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years. Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, told The Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax." Climate scientist Robert Lindzen of MIT believes that clouds and water vapor will counteract greenhouse gas emissions.Is there any evidence to support these opinions?

I guess he was bought by EXXON, back in 1974?
Or is he just the lunatic fringe?What is your point Fyyr, that because someone disagrees with a theory it must necessarily be incorrect, no matter what data supports it or who else agrees with it?

Is there any evidence to support these opinions?

In the case of the effect of water vapour (a greenhous gas) and cloud (which prevents solar radiation from reaching the surface where it is trapped by the greenhouse gasses) this is the biggest known (and acknowledged) uncertainty in the model. Scientist simply do not yet know enough about how climate and clouds affect each other. Which explains the broad range in predictions and the occasional contradictory data.
The logical response would be more study, not the suppression of study and dismissal of our best understanding because of this uncertainty.


Eri

What is your point Fyyr, that because someone disagrees with a theory it must necessarily be incorrect, no matter what data supports it or who else agrees with it?

Fyyr wants the theory of global warming not to be true, and as usual in the case of strongly held faiths logic and arguments do not stand a chance against opinion.
At least that is how he comes across lately on this subject.


Eri

Fyyr wants the theory of global warming not to be true...
That is not the case.

as usual in the case of strongly held faiths logic and arguments do not stand a chance against opinion.
Everything is an opinion.

Even global warming. Or rather the theory that human beings are polluting the planet and changing(for the negative) the climate.

That is not the case.


Everything is an opinion.

Even global warming. Or rather the theory that human beings are polluting the planet and changing(for the negative) the climate.

Not everything is opinion. What a stupid statement.

If I stand up right now and turn the open bottle of coke zero i'm drink, upside down, I know, for fact, that I am going to have coke zero all over my floor.

That depends, is the lid on it?

EDIT: Bleh, double post. DELETE ME! :)

He said "Open bottle" - Aidon doesn't make rookie mistakes like leaving that word out :)

"Everything is opinion" may be true on a philosophical level, that does not mean that every opinion has equal value. Even if, on any given day, it'll either snow or not, does not mean there's a 50/50 chance of snow. Especially if it's July, and even if you can dig up a handful of scientists who make that claim.

...that does not mean that every opinion has equal value...

That is the most important part.

And it is not merely a philosophical statement. Even most facts are just estimates(which may be highly accurate, even), and estimates are opinions.

If Aidon had said that he poured all of the soda out of the bottles onto the floor, there would most certainly be a small amount of soda still left in the bottles clinging to the inside, or some splashed on his pants legs. He worded his statement carefully, though. It would be a fact that he poured all of the soda onto the floor regardless, even though the estimation(the opinion) was only accurate enough for belief.

We would believe him that "all of the soda" was now on the floor, but in reality, it is not; but it is good enough.

It is not merely philosophical, science even has a term(at least one), and a sub science to account for it, called 'significant figures'. Which accounts for errors in estimations, or 'opinions' of measurement and calculations. Statistics is a macro science designed specifically to make accurate estimations; predicated of course on the meaning of estimations, which are essentially opinions.

When most people most frequently use the term 'facts' what they really most likely are referring to are opinions which they believe are so accurate, that they hope and believe that there is no arguing over the degree or margin of error of that opinion. Which may, or may not be true.

So then the real point is that stating something as a 'fact' and something as an 'opinion' does not necessarily specify exactly has accurate either is, even though the user hopes that they can pull that off when they say such things.

Science an medicine knew for hundreds of years for a fact that stress causes peptic ulcers, until two Australians theorized and said and then proved that they were mostly caused by a bacteria. And even to this day, most people know for a fact that stress causes ulcers, which is really just an uniformed and inaccurate opinion.

Science an medicine knew for hundreds of years for a fact that stress causes peptic ulcers, until two Australians theorized and said and then proved that they were mostly caused by a bacteria. And even to this day, most people know for a fact that stress causes ulcers, which is really just an uniformed and inaccurate opinion.

So? If doctors want to cure people they have to provide treatment to the best of their medical knowledge. They can't sit around saying that opinions might change in 100 years time when there's a sick person needing their help.

At the moment we've got a sick planet and it needs the right kind of help.

Science an medicine knew for hundreds of years for a fact that stress causes peptic ulcers, until two Australians theorized and said and then proved that they were mostly caused by a bacteria.Well, since science and opinion can always be wrong, the only solution is to renounce science altogether, and go back to living in caves.

Well, since science and opinion can always be wrong, the only solution is to renounce science altogether, and go back to living in caves.

Forget caves. It was a mistake to ever get out of those trees!


Eri
(p.s. yes, I am shamelessly quoting ;))

Science an medicine knew for hundreds of years for a fact that stress causes peptic ulcers, until two Australians theorized and said and then proved that they were mostly caused by a bacteria. And even to this day, most people know for a fact that stress causes ulcers, which is really just an uniformed and inaccurate opinion.

So that July it did snow, now - explain why we are to believe that it'll snow this July too. I'm really not going to leave my winter coats out on the word of a handful of scientists who have the weight of the centuries against them.

(For you analogy deficient people out there: Yes, this is one. Yes, I am really talking about global warming.)

So? If doctors want to cure people they have to provide treatment to the best of their medical knowledge
And that starts with the formation of an opinion, we call it a diagnoses. And they can be wrong, why we order all the tests that we do. And it is those same doctors who for 20 years completely disregard the truth that H. Pylori causes most cases of peptic ulcers. It is not that they just ignored the truth, they helped stymie it.

They can't sit around saying that opinions might change in 100 years time when there's a sick person needing their help.
If you have a preconceived notion that the patient with cirrhosis of the liver has got it only from drinking too much alcohol, your plan of treatment will be wrong most of the time.

If the diagnosis that your patient has cirrhosis of the liver, and he does not, all of your treatments will be wrong all of the time.

At the moment we've got a sick planet and it needs the right kind of help.
I like the weather here in California the way that it is. And funny, the weather here is exactly the same 30 years ago, just like I liked it then. It rains the same, it snows the same, it is hot the same, it is foggy the same.

I have never trusted weathermen, I always look out the window or door in the morning to tell me if I should wear a jacket or not. They are wrong most of the time.

I look out the window and door right now, and it looks exactly the same that it did 30 years ago. Which as you say, is not the case. You are saying that the weather is different, but it is not.

I have been inputting rainfall data into a spreadsheet(for graphing) that goes back to 1971. There appears to be no pattern of increased or decreased rainfall in that time frame. Which is ok, because it would not matter that much anyways; because half of global warming forecasters have said that their models predict increased rainfall and half have predictions of decreased rainfall. That is to say, that if global warming is occurring there is a 33% chance of showers, a 33% chance of partly cloudy, and 33% chance of sun. Which is great to hedge all of your bets on, of course. Nothing like having the reds and blacks all covered.

It is a great job, where one can be wrong most of the time, and still get paid.

What is so funny about most of your actual argument is that really one I have heard most my life in support of belief in God. "You are going to Hell, if you don't believe in God, what do you have to lose in order to save your eternal soul?" It is the same argument, something bad will happen to you in the future if you don't change your sinning evil ways now.

Amen. Praise the Lord!

I look out the window and door right now, and it looks exactly the same that it did 30 years ago. Which as you say, is not the case. You are saying that the weather is different, but it is not.Right. And because you can't visually perceive a difference in the past 30 years (judging from your own memory), in one little area of the world, there must be nothing wrong.

I suppose an HIV patient is not really sick either before he develops AIDS, because, hey, I can't see anything wrong, right now, with my own eyes, and last year he was OK too. And there must not be an epidemic either because, hey, I don't have it.

I like the weather here in California the way that it is. And funny, the weather here is exactly the same 30 years ago, just like I liked it then. It rains the same, it snows the same, it is hot the same, it is foggy the same.

I have never trusted weathermen, I always look out the window or door in the morning to tell me if I should wear a jacket or not. They are wrong most of the time.

I look out the window and door right now, and it looks exactly the same that it did 30 years ago. Which as you say, is not the case. You are saying that the weather is different, but it is not.

The weather is slightly different. We had the warmest 12 month spell ever recorded in the UK last year.

Your head in the sand attitude forgets that global warming is not a turn on/turn off problem. We can't just mess up this planet then move to another one. If it's broken we can't just fix it and make it alright for the day after. Our cumulative pollution will stick around for decades. It's no use trying to solve global warming once we have unproductive farmland or disasterous flooding. We need to prevent it now.

If we have the power to make the weather go one way, we certainly have the power to make it go the other way.

If temperate zones are only changing in latitude, unproductive farmland becomes very relative. It could very well be an extreme benefit in the newly productive regions.

We need to prevent it now
Why?

Right. And because you can't visually perceive a difference in the past 30 years (judging from your own memory), in one little area of the world, there must be nothing wrong.
But the last 30 years should have produced the most marked and notable changes. Especially during the 70s where there were absolutely no environmental controls on emissions.

I suppose an HIV patient is not really sick either before he develops AIDS, because, hey, I can't see anything wrong, right now, with my own eyes, and last year he was OK too. And there must not be an epidemic either because, hey, I don't have it.
You can suppose any ridiculous analogy that you like.

You have not established that what(you say) is happening has not happened before, and that it is not naturally occurring. Or that it is not naturally self correcting.

It makes better sense that if ecological changes are occurring, that they may be South American in origin, with the denuding of trillions of acres of trees.
Why are you guys not working on stopping them from burning all the jungles? Put your dollars at work, and buy up the freeking land.

But the last 30 years should have produced the most marked and notable changes.Why?Especially during the 70s where there were absolutely no environmental controls on emissions.Greenhouse gases are not the same as pollution, and greenhouse gas emission levels in the 70s globally were tiny compared to emission levels today. See Post #44 (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showpost.php?p=221909&postcount=44).You have not established that what(you say) is happening has not happened beforeWhat difference does that make?, and that it is not naturally occurring. Or that it is not naturally self correcting.Prove that god doesn't exist.It makes better sense that if ecological changes are occurring, that they may be South American in origin, with the denuding of trillions of acres of trees.Why does that make better sense, and what proof do you have? Not to mention, we're trying to stop that, too.

P.S. Fyyr: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtavt.pl?ca5032.

I've got it!

H. Pylori is causing global warming!

Not to mention, we're trying to stop that, too.

Buy up the land and plant your trees.

Stop trying to solve the problem by buying Ben and Jerrys ice cream and whining, and do something yourself about it.

P.S. Fyyr: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtavt.pl?ca5032.

Do you see the pattern?

Prove that god doesn't exist.

I say that a 600 pound man eating two pouched kangaroo inhabits the wilderness areas of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Sometimes it is even known to eat a Sasquatch or two.

Prove to me that it does not exist.

Go 'head.

Prove it doesn't exist. Until you do, it exists, right?

Do you see the pattern?The more important question is, do you? And if you can't see a clear pattern when objective numbers are laid down before your eyes, how do you expect us to trust your conclusions, which are based only on your subjective, vague recollections from childhood?Prove to me that it does not exist.Eh? You're the one using religious zealot type, prove-the-negative reasoning. I (we) are not.

Oh, and it grants wishes when it farts, too.

Forgot that about the kangaroo.

If we have the power to make the weather go one way, we certainly have the power to make it go the other way.

If temperate zones are only changing in latitude, unproductive farmland becomes very relative. It could very well be an extreme benefit in the newly productive regions.


Why?

In short, because the serious scientist (not the media and pressure groups hyping the issue) realise they do not know enough to be certain but certainly enough to be worried.

To the best of their understanding releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gasses and pollution into the air is affecting the world's climate

To the best of their understanding the climate is an unstable equilibrium and pushing it too far in any one direction may push it towards a new balance that may not be nearly as survivable. Ice age is one possible outcome, but rampant heating is another one. At the most extreme we could wipe out all life on earth (though that is not too likely a scenario)

To the best of their understanding it takes a lot of time to get such a massive system moving but once it starts to slide, it takes an equally long time to get it to stop, if that is indeed possible. The current evidence being gathered indicates we may approach the point were the whole system begins to settle into a new state.

So, the logical conclusion is to 1) study more, and quickly. 2) to stop upsetting the climate anymore to buy ourselves more time to do 1.
If we are lucky it turns out their fears are unfounded. More likely is that it turns out their fears were mostly correct, if inaccurate in the face of the complexity of the whole climate issue, and that we have to seriously restructure our economies and lifes to prevent from killing ourselves off. And if we are really unlucky they find we are already too late and that the momentum of changes already set in motion will carry through regardless of what we do.

So, regardless of whether any of us -believes- that climate change is man made or not, it still makes sense to slow down a bit and study the issue, considering the potential serious consequences if that belief turns out to be correct.


Eri