NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

[HAL 9000 96]

There's absolutely no way that we can get off oil in the short or medium term - but we can sure get off coal and put a greater emphasis on nuclear and natural gas. At least until renewable sources become more efficient cost effective.

I will go along with that. I think we need to get rid of oil as a fuel. But I don't want to handcuff ourselves with worrying about CO2. It just makes the job of finding alternatives harder.

Coal accounts for something like 50-odd percent of our national energy production. Its the filthiest thing going - far more so even than oil.

Coal is something we have a lot of. We can clean up the smokestacks enough to stop the pollution. Just stop worrying about the CO2. Coal will give us the room we need to develope other energy sources.

I believe that alternatives will be reached before a climate shift forces us to do so against our will. What we will continue to see, though, are strange weather changes that will be the topic of debate for years to come.

[HAL 9000 96]

I absolutely think that Kyoto needs to go from something recommended to something that is binding. The threat, from enough empirical evidence supporting the deleterious effects of CO2 alone, not even considering the cooperative effects that come from other greenhouse gases, is real enough.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the artificial aspect of the weather changes that you mention in every GW post to have something quite factual in causation from the post-industrial shift in emissions in some parts of the planet. So while one country reduces its CO2 emission, while raising or maintaining CFC, halogenates, and other industrial/consumer compounds, another one may be doing quite the opposite. The net effect needs to be considered, and even this can fluctuate according to the artificial (industrial, financial, and political) forces that created them in the first place.

Where is the proof for all this? We can't go changing our entire energy base without some real facts. Otherwise we are just running on fear and emotion.

Gary, there is plenty of evidence supporting my point of view documented in every major scientific journal that publishes climatological hypothesis-driven science.

Remember, its all about what is contributing to each particular aspect of the artificial basis of climate and weather change. Its not about falling into politics but rather about doing politics based on actual fact.

Neither is it about changing our entire energy base overnight. Things done that way are not only impossible, but extremely unrealistic.

Its about doing things a little bit more intelligently.

I keep hearing that there is plenty of evidence supporting your point of view. I also see plenty of evidence that disputes your point of view. I am not saying your wrong and I am right I am saying we don't know yet. And on that basis I am unwilling to do the drastic changes that are spelled out in Kyoto. I would rather see some more definitive proof first.

Well Gary... this unfortunately for your point of view is insufficient to convince the real climate scientists that are actually defining through evidence the mechanistic contributors to what is and what isn't affecting weather and climate.

The proof is there in pieces. When the dots get connected in logical sequence is when models are created. Models are based on factual, patterned data, not any particular skew in the scientific process.

Besides, Kyoto will be readily obsolete as hopefully one day the financial aspect that makes your opposition to supporting protecting our environment will become null- we will be forced to go green or go broke AND the advancement of energy procurement will become much more green in itself.

Don't you just wish all that could happen simultaneously AND the proof was easier to read?

To finish off:

"The theory as I understand it has a direct corralation between CO2 levels and heat trapped in the air. If this is true then why did temps go down so much in the 60's and 70's that scientists were calling for a new Ice Age. If it were true then why has temps leveled off in the last 10 years? It does not make sense."

The correlation is direct, yes. BUT, and a big one, there are catalysts and cooperative elements that can/could compound the issue further.

Furthermore, remember, weather. An Ice Age is something completely different (climactic). Think about what was happening post WWII in terms of industry, agriculture, and, where you get your sources from.

Global temperature has increased on average in the last 100 years of weather, and this takes into account the last 30.

But the last 50 years do not fit the template. Temps went down in the 60's and 70's and the last 10 years it has leveled off. That isn't weather, those are trends that lead to climate conclusions.

No Gary. By definition that is weather.

Climate defines weather over much larger periods of time, like in the thousands of years.

Then we are back to the idea that the rise in temps over the last 70 years means nothing. That means man made GW is just an unproven theory and based on weather observations. Which is it? It can't work only one way.

No Gary... try to understand that it is completely logical that weather itself responds to artificial factors. The temperature changes over the last century mean a lot.

Push the weather around enough and wham! You could get a climate shift.

You haven't even pondered weather homeostasis around the globe.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's absolutely no way that we can get off oil in the short or medium term - but we can sure get off coal and put a greater emphasis on nuclear and natural gas. At least until renewable sources become more efficient cost effective.

I will go along with that. I think we need to get rid of oil as a fuel. But I don't want to handcuff ourselves with worrying about CO2. It just makes the job of finding alternatives harder.

Coal accounts for something like 50-odd percent of our national energy production. Its the filthiest thing going - far more so even than oil.

Coal is something we have a lot of. We can clean up the smokestacks enough to stop the pollution. Just stop worrying about the CO2. Coal will give us the room we need to develope other energy sources.

The status quo in other words.