White House issues new dire climate report: Scientists: Extreme weather will worsen if pollutants aren't curbed

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Shaun McKinnon -

The Arizona Republic

Hotter summers, shorter winters, more intense storms, deepening droughts and melting glaciers add up to one clear conclusion, scientists said Tuesday:

Earth's climate is already changing, and the effects will grow worse if the threat is ignored.

The scientists made their case in a new report intended to chart the immediate and future risks of rising temperatures in the United States. The document narrowed the focus of a 2007 global assessment that presented much of the same information.

What was new and significant was the source of the report: It was released by the White House, affirming President Barack Obama's pledge to address an issue his predecessor largely ignored.

"Remedial action is needed sooner rather than later," said John Holdren, the president's science adviser. Holdren said the report spells out why the country must act now to slow rising temperatures and adapt to changes "that are no longer avoidable."

The report, based on a similar draft that a lawsuit forced the Bush administration to compile, stakes an aggressive claim that global warming is almost certainly caused by man-made greenhouse gases. That assertion is central to Obama's call for a plan to reduce pollution levels.

Congress is examining several approaches, but debate over the cost - and even whether global warming is real - has stalled progress. The report's authors downplayed their role in shaping the specifics of any legislation and said their aim is to educate lawmakers and the public.

"The foot-dragging on climate change is a reflection of the public's perception that it is all down the road and only affects remote parts of the world," said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the agency that coordinated the research.

"This report provides the concrete scientific information that says unequivocally that climate change is happening now, and it's happening in our own backyards, and it affects the kind of things people care about," Lubchenco added.

Even with its theme of immediacy, the report did not shy away from dire predictions of what might happen if man-made greenhouse gases, mostly pollutants produced by the burning of fossil fuels, keep filling the skies.

Drawing from findings that have been published and reviewed previously, the authors imagined a worst-case world, one that would look much different by the end of the century:

• High temperatures would spread northward, with 100-degree days becoming as common in some Midwestern states as they are in Arizona.

• Extreme-weather conditions would spawn floods, tornadoes and deadly hurricanes.

• Rising sea levels would inundate long stretches of the Florida coast, and storm surges from the Gulf of Mexico would pound New Orleans and other cities.

Arizona sits in a bull's-eye of many threats, including drought, hotter weather and shrinking water supplies. The report noted that rising temperatures have already affected the water-runoff cycle, melting snow too early and drying up rivers.

"The fact that we're seeing all these changes already taking place gives us a high amount of confidence that we'll see more of them," said Jonathan Overpeck, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Arizona and one of the report's authors.

Researchers have studied Arizona's recent drought for clues about its origin, and although they can't say it was caused by global warming, they see hints about how a hotter climate might affect the state. Water could become even scarcer. Wildfires would burn more acres. Insects would thrive in warmer, drier forests.

Already in Phoenix, the number of 100-degree days every year has climbed from fewer than 90 in the 1970s to an average of 109.

Population growth and the demand for water and energy will exacerbate many of the effects, said an Arizona State University ecologist who contributed to the report. "People seem to want to live and build their cities precisely where the risk of impacts is greatest, along coasts and in the driest regions of the country," said Nancy Grimm, who has studied urban ecology in Phoenix.

Although the report at times reads like a catalog of biblical plagues - fire, floods, insect infestations, destruction of crops - the authors acknowledge that much is still unknown about the long term.

A longer growing season and more rain could help farmers, for example, but the farmers may have to adjust the crops they grow or the way they grow them. Already, the center of maple-syrup production has begun to shift northward, scientists said, as higher temperatures in New England affect the health of maple trees.

"The bottom line is: Climate change already is affecting the things we value," said Jerry Melillo, one of the report's chief authors and a scientist at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass.

"These are not opinions to be debated, they are facts to be dealt with. Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It is about people, it is about us."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/green/articl...report0617.html

[pedroh 21]

BS we all know this ain't true...

[GaryC 7]

IPCC Admits they Could be Wrong about Humans Causing Global Warming

June 13th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

If that headline surprises you, then it is a good indication of how successful the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in their 20-year long effort to pin the rap for global warming on humanity. I’m not reporting anything really new here. I’m just stating what is logically consistent with, and a necessary inference from, one of the most recognizable claims contained in the Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC’s 2007 report:

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

They assign a probablility of 90% to the term “very likely”. This is a curious use of statistical probability since warming over the last 50 years is either mostly due to anthropogenic emissions, or it isn’t. Probabilities do not apply to past events like this.

What the IPCC is really using probabilities for is to attach some scientific value to their level of faith. I would be very surprised if there weren’t vigorous objections to the use of probabilities in this way from members of the IPCC…but the IPCC leadership really needed a scientific-sounding way to help push their political agenda, so I’m sure any objections were overruled.

But I digress. My main point here is that the IPCC is admitting that they might be wrong. That doesn’t sound to me like “the science is settled”, as Al Gore is fond of saying. If it is “very likely” that “most” of the observed warming was due to mankind, then they are admitting that it is possible that the warming was mostly natural, instead.

So, let’s play along with their little probability game. Given the extreme cost of greatly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, wouldn’t you say that it would be important to actively investigate the 10% possibility that warming is mostly natural, as the IPCC readily admits?

Where is the 10% of government research dollars looking into this possibility? I suspect it is going to environmental NGO’s who are finding new ways to package “global warming” so that it doesn’t sound like a liberal issue. Or maybe they are working on more clever names to call researchers like me other than “deniers”, which is getting a little tiresome.

For many years the Department of Defense has had “Red Team” reviews devoted to finding holes in the “consensus of opinion” on weapons systems that cost a whole lot less than punishing the use of our most abundant and affordable sources of energy. It seems like a no-brainer that you would do something similar for something this expensive, and as destructive to the lives of poor people all over the world.

One could almost get the impression that there is more than just science that determines what climate science gets funded, and how it gets reported by the news media. Oh, that’s right I forgot…the United Nations is in charge of this effort. Well, I’m sure they know what they are doing.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/06/ipcc-a...global-warming/

[The_Dude 1,142]

IPCC Admits they Could be Wrong about Humans Causing Global Warming

June 13th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

If that headline surprises you, then it is a good indication of how successful the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in their 20-year long effort to pin the rap for global warming on humanity. I’m not reporting anything really new here. I’m just stating what is logically consistent with, and a necessary inference from, one of the most recognizable claims contained in the Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC’s 2007 report:

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

They assign a probablility of 90% to the term “very likely”. This is a curious use of statistical probability since warming over the last 50 years is either mostly due to anthropogenic emissions, or it isn’t. Probabilities do not apply to past events like this.

What the IPCC is really using probabilities for is to attach some scientific value to their level of faith. I would be very surprised if there weren’t vigorous objections to the use of probabilities in this way from members of the IPCC…but the IPCC leadership really needed a scientific-sounding way to help push their political agenda, so I’m sure any objections were overruled.

But I digress. My main point here is that the IPCC is admitting that they might be wrong. That doesn’t sound to me like “the science is settled”, as Al Gore is fond of saying. If it is “very likely” that “most” of the observed warming was due to mankind, then they are admitting that it is possible that the warming was mostly natural, instead.

So, let’s play along with their little probability game. Given the extreme cost of greatly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, wouldn’t you say that it would be important to actively investigate the 10% possibility that warming is mostly natural, as the IPCC readily admits?

Where is the 10% of government research dollars looking into this possibility? I suspect it is going to environmental NGO’s who are finding new ways to package “global warming” so that it doesn’t sound like a liberal issue. Or maybe they are working on more clever names to call researchers like me other than “deniers”, which is getting a little tiresome.

For many years the Department of Defense has had “Red Team” reviews devoted to finding holes in the “consensus of opinion” on weapons systems that cost a whole lot less than punishing the use of our most abundant and affordable sources of energy. It seems like a no-brainer that you would do something similar for something this expensive, and as destructive to the lives of poor people all over the world.

One could almost get the impression that there is more than just science that determines what climate science gets funded, and how it gets reported by the news media. Oh, that’s right I forgot…the United Nations is in charge of this effort. Well, I’m sure they know what they are doing.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/06/ipcc-a...global-warming/

Ummm, a blog posting with no link to anything other than his own blog is not a credible source.

[scandal 951]

Gary,

Here's an example for you.

Iran is "most likely" actively developing a nuclear weapons capability. They claim they only want a peaceful nuclear energy program. But all the data and analysis gathered by western intelligence agencies points to the direction that this is disingenuous and that their real intent is bomb making. It's not a 100% certainty, of course. Western intelligence agencies have been wrong about such things before, notably the WMD program in Iraq. So, let's call it about 90% certain that Iran is actively working to build nuclear weapons.

Based on the logic of your previous post, we should just ignore that 90% likelihood and allow Iran go about its merry way, yes?

Or no? Because if you believe that it's vital to the peace of the world to do whatever we can to curtail proliferation in Iran (and other states, e.g. North Korea), then we are expending resources on a "strong likelihood" only. Why should global warming be any different?

The science behind global warming is very strong. Is it settled? Not yet. We have sketchy climate data from a period of only decades, maybe a century or so. Climate change happens over a period of millennia. No kidding there's an uncertainty factor there. But that uncertainty has narrowed dramatically over the last 20 years or so as the science has become more accurate. We were in a "maybe" stage. We're now in the "very likely" stage. Ignore that at your peril.

[GaryC 7]

Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem

Leonard Weinstein, ScD

April 25, 2009

A theory has been proposed that human activity over about the last 150 years has caused a significant rise in Earth’s average temperature. The mechanism claimed is based on an increased greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic increases in CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, cement manufacture, and also from increases in CH4 from farm animals and other causes. The present versions of the theory also include a positive feedback effect due to the increased temperature causing an increase in water vapor, which amplifies the effect. The combined result are used to claim that unless the anthropogenic increases of CO2 are slowed down or even made to decrease, there will be a continuing rapid increase in global temperature, massive melting of ice caps, flooding, pestilence, etc.

In order to support a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a theory, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the theory is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions are absolute in nature. Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light by the Sun is such a case. It either would or would not bend, and this was considered a critical test of the validity of his theory of general relativity. It did bend the predicted amount, and supported his theory.

Many predictions however are less easily supported. For example weather forecasting often does a good job in the very short term but over increasing time does a poor job. This is due to the complexity of the numerous nonlinear components. This complexity has been described in chaos theory by what is called the butterfly effect. Any effect that depends on numerous factors, some of which are nonlinear in effect, is nearly impossible to use to make long-range predictions. However, for some reason, the present predictions of “Climate Change” are considered by the AGW supporters to be more reliable than even short-term weather forecasting. While some overall trends can be reasonably made based on looking at past historical trends, and some computational models can suggest some suggested trends due to specific forcing factors, nevertheless, the long term predicted result has not been shown to be valid. Like any respectable theory, specific predictions need to be made, and then shown to happen, before the AGW models can have any claim to reasonable validity.

The AGW computational models do make several specific predictions. Since the time scale for checking the result of the predictions is small, and since local weather can vary enough on the short time scale to confuse the longer time scale prediction, allowances for these shorter lasting events have to be made when examining predictions. Nevertheless, if the actual data results do not significantly support the theory, it must be reconsidered or even rejected as it stands.

The main predictions from the AGW models are:

The average Earth’s temperature will increase at a rate of 0.20C to 0.60C per decade at least to 2100, and will continue to climb after that if the CO2 continues to be produced by human activity at current predicted rates.

The increasing temperature will cause increased water evaporation, which is the cause for the positive feedback needed to reach the high temperatures.

The temperature at lower latitudes (especially tropical regions) will increase more in the lower Troposphere at moderate altitudes than near the surface.

The greatest near surface temperature increases will occur at the higher latitudes.

The increasing temperature at higher latitudes will cause significant Antarctic and Greenland ice melt. These combined with ocean expansion due to warming will cause significant ocean rise and flooding.

A temperature drop in the lower Stratosphere will accompany the temperature increase near the surface. The shape of the trend down in the Stratosphere should be close to a mirror reflection of the near surface trend up.

The present CO2 level is high and increasing (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/). It should be fairly easy to show the consequences of AGW predictions if they are valid.

Figure 1. Global average temperature from 1850 through 2008. Annual series smoothed with a 21-point binomial filter by the Met Office. (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/)

It should be noted that the largest part of the last 150 year increase in CO2, which is blamed on human activity, did not occur until after 1940, so the largest temperature rise effects should have occurred in that time. The proponents of AGW have generally used the time period from 1970 to 2000 as the base line for an indicator of the rapid warming. In that base line period, the average temperature rose about 0.50C, which averages to 0.160C per decade. The claim was then made that this would accelerate due to continuing increases in CO2 level. However if we look at the temperature change from 1940 through 2008, the net increase is only 0.30C. This is due to a drop from 1940 to 1970 and a slight drop from 2000 through 2008. Now the average rise for that period is only 0.040C per decade. If the time period from 1850 through 2008 is used as a base, the net increase is just under 0.70C and the average rise is also 0.040C per decade! It is clear that choosing a short selected period of rising temperature gives a misleading result. It is also true that the present trend is down and expected to continue downward for several more years before reversing again. This certainly makes claim 1 questionable.

The drop in temperature from 1940 to 1970 was claimed to have been caused by “global dimming” caused by aerosols made by human activity. This was stated as dominating the AGW effects at that time. This was supposed to have been overcome by activity initiated by the clean air act. In fact, the “global dimming” continued into the mid 1990’s and then only reduced slightly before increasing more (probably due to China and other countries increased activity). If the global dimming was not significantly reduced, why did the temperature increase from 1970 to just past 2000?

A consequence of global dimming is reduced pan-evaporation level. This also implies that ocean evaporation is decreased, since the main cause of ocean evaporation is Solar insolation, not air temperature. The decreased evaporation contradicts claim 2.

Claim 3 has been contradicted by a combination of satellite and air born sensor measurements. While the average lower Troposphere average temperature has risen along with near ground air temperature, and in some cases is slightly warmer, nevertheless the models predicted that the lower Troposphere would be significantly warmer than near ground at the lower latitudes, especially in the tropics. This has not occurred! The following is a statement from:

Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1

Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program

and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research

April 2006

“While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved”.

Claim 4 implies that the higher latitudes should heat up more than lower latitudes. This is supposed to be especially important for melting of glaciers and permafrost. In fact, the higher latitudes have warmed, but at a rate close to the rest of the world. In fact, Antarctica has overall cooled in the last 50 years except for the small tail that sticks out. See:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2wee...0061013_02.html

Greenland and the arctic region are presently no warmer than they were in the late 1930’s, and are presently cooling! See:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...ir-temperature/

The overall effect of Antarctic and Greenland are now resulting in net gain (or at least near zero change) of ice, not loss. While some small areas have recently lost and are some are still losing some ice, this is mostly sea ice and thus do not contribute to sea level rise. Glaciers in other locations such as Alaska have lost a significant amount of ice in the last 150 years, but much of the loss is from glaciers that formed or increased during the little ice age, or from local variations, not global. Most of this little ice age ice is gone and some glaciers are actually starting to increase as the temperature is presently dropping. For more discussions on the sea level issue look at the following two sites:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dnc49xz_1...×67fj&hl=en

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-ever-told.html

This indicates that claim 5 is clearly wrong. While sea level will rise a small amount, and has so since the start of the Holocene period, the rise is now only 10 to 15 cm per century, and is not significantly related to the recent recovery from the little ice age, including the present period of warming.

The claims in 6 are particularly interesting. Figure 2 below shows the Global Brightness Temperature Anomaly (0C) in the lower Troposphere and lower Stratosphere made from space.

a) Channel TLT is the lower Troposphere from ground to about 5 km

B) Channel TLS is the lower Stratosphere from about 12 to 25 km

Figure 2. Global satellite data from RSS/MSU and AMSU data. Monthly time series of brightness temperature anomaly for channels TLT, and TLS. Data from: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

The anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow troposphere warming for Channel TLT (Lower Troposphere). The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the 1997-98 being the largest. It also appears there is an aditional one at 2007. Channel TLS (Lower Stratosphere) is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). In these, and other volcanic eruption cases, the increased absorption and reflectivity of the dust and aerosols at high altitudes lowered the surface Solar insolation, but since they absorbed more energy, they increased the high altitude temperature. After the large spikes dropped back down, the new levels were lower and nearly flat between large volcanic eruptions. It is also likely that the reflection or absorption due to particulates also dropped, so the surface Solar insolation went back up. It appears that a secondary effect of the volcanic eruptions is present that is unknown in nature (but not CO2)! One possible explanation is a modest but long-term drop in Ozone. It is also clear that the linear fit to the data shown is meaningless. In fact the level drop events seem additive if they overlap soon enough for at least the two cases shown. That is, after El Chicon dropped the level, then Pinatubo occurred and dropped the level even more. Two months after Pinatubo, another strong volcano, Cerro Hudson, also erupted, possibly amplifying the effect. It appears that the recovery time from whatever causes the very slow changing level shift has a recovery time constant of at least several decades.

The computational models that show that the increasing CO2 and CH4 cause most of the present global warming all require that the temperature of the Stratosphere drops while the lower atmosphere and ground heat up. It appears from the above figures that the volcanic activity clearly caused the temperature to spike up in the Stratosphere, and that these spikes were immediately followed by a drop to a new nearly constant level in the temperature. It is clear from the Mauna Loa CO2 data (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) that the input of CO2 (or CH4) from the volcanoes, did not significantly increase the background level of this gas, and thus, this cannot be the cause of the drop in the Stratosphere temperature. The ramp up of atmospheric CO2 also cannot explain the step down then level changes in high altitude temperature. Since the surface temperature rise is supposed to be related to the Stratosphere temperature drop, and since a significant surface rise above the 1940 temperature level did not occur until the early 1980’s, it may be that the combination of the two (or more) volcanoes, along with Solar variability and variations in ocean currents (i.e., PDO) may explain the major causes of recent surface temperature rises to about 2002. In fact, the average Earth temperature stopped rising after 2002, and has been dropping for the last few years!

The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem. There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate. Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/24/disp...blem/#more-7993

[The_Dude 1,142]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

@Gary's Conspiracy Theory.

[GaryC 7]

@Gary's Conspiracy Theory.

You mean the conspiracy theory that man is causing GW?

[scandal 951]

Agreed.

Gary, yesterday you took Steven to task for supposedly being a hypocrite and far worse. You used very extreme language in repeated postings.

Now, you're not compelled to post anything. You can post, or not post. You can post your views, or you can quote articles. It's really up to you.

But I would say this - I attempted to present a reasonable case based on a logical analogy (Iranian armament) to challenge the theory your earlier article suggested that it's pointless to invest efforts in a theory that is only "very likely" (human caused global warming). I did not personally attack you. I did not call you names. I did not use all caps or even smileys.

You chose not to respond to my argument - fair enough. You don't owe me or anyone a response.

But you did choose to offer yet another article from yet another non-consensus author (non-consensus meaning not part of the established scientific expert community). Without a word from yourself on why you think the article is relevant or ties into the previous discussion. Apparently you believe the article speaks for itself, and refutes all challenges to your view. And that article was a mass of information, intended to obliterate opposition. It doesn't argue with my position, since the author of your article is unaware of my posting. You post that article in an attempt to merely stifle discussion, to steamroll it with a wall of text. It really is just like using ALL CAPS SHOUTING.

There is room for expert references and citations, I'm a big believer in that. If you write and express your views, and cite articles that you believe buttress them, with links and relevant excerpts, I will gladly read and pay attention and consider. But if you post-by-intimidation, I will just move on and not bother.

Write what you want. Say what you want. Think what you want. If the purpose of debate is to sway opinions by reasoned arguments, I fail to see that you are doing that here. Certainly not with me.

[alienlovechild 75]

If global warming so bad and such a certainty, why are we bothering with any other issue? The economy doesn't matter, war doesn't matter, . . .

Even more silly to believe all the major nations will all cooperate with control measures when there's isn't an overwhelming visible threat to combat.

Already in Phoenix, the number of 100-degree days every year has climbed from fewer than 90 in the 1970s to an average of 109.

Population growth and the demand for water and energy will exacerbate many of the effects, said an Arizona State University ecologist who contributed to the report. "People seem to want to live and build their cities precisely where the risk of impacts is greatest, along coasts and in the driest regions of the country," said Nancy Grimm, who has studied urban ecology in Phoenix.

Nobody notices the temperature there because they all live indoors during the hotter months. In fact, more people are moving there than in northern states. People who move to those environmentally sensitive areas simply could care less.

A longer growing season and more rain could help farmers, for example, but the farmers may have to adjust the crops they grow or the way they grow them. Already, the center of maple-syrup production has begun to shift northward, scientists said, as higher temperatures in New England affect the health of maple trees.

Most likely senario is that man will adapt because he has to. There's little evidence the global climate can be controlled to an ideal setting as if we had a huge thermostat.

[The_Dude 1,142]

If global warming so bad and such a certainty, why are we bothering with any other issue? The economy doesn't matter, war doesn't matter, . . .

Even more silly to believe all the major nations will all cooperate with control measures when there's isn't an overwhelming visible threat to combat.

Already in Phoenix, the number of 100-degree days every year has climbed from fewer than 90 in the 1970s to an average of 109.

Population growth and the demand for water and energy will exacerbate many of the effects, said an Arizona State University ecologist who contributed to the report. "People seem to want to live and build their cities precisely where the risk of impacts is greatest, along coasts and in the driest regions of the country," said Nancy Grimm, who has studied urban ecology in Phoenix.

Nobody notices the temperature there because they all live indoors during the hotter months. In fact, more people are moving there than in northern states. People who move to those environmentally sensitive areas simply could care less.

A longer growing season and more rain could help farmers, for example, but the farmers may have to adjust the crops they grow or the way they grow them. Already, the center of maple-syrup production has begun to shift northward, scientists said, as higher temperatures in New England affect the health of maple trees.

Most likely senario is that man will adapt because he has to. There's little evidence the global climate can be controlled to an ideal setting as if we had a huge thermostat.

Is that supposed to be evidence that global warming is either a hoax or not man made?

[Peikko 1,575]

It's par for the course, and what passes for logical analysis of the known facts around here

On that note, why is the standard dogma keep increasing population size? Who does this theory benefit? Yes, I know that having a top heavy population is problematic for a while, but better now than later when things will be infinitely worse is what I say.

[alienlovechild 75]

Is that supposed to be evidence that global warming is either a hoax or not man made?

Didn't assert either of those points- you did.

Still waiting on any proof that control measures will somehow change 300 years of industrialization fast enough but proponents usually don't address that part.

We know that within human history, the climate changed. The land bridge with Asia, settlements in Greenland, a more habitable Sahara Desert and volcanic eruptions long before global warming become a theory.

This stuff is akin to the scary talk about nukes and nuclear power 30 years ago. If you wanted nukes, you must be suicidal and we're all going to die. Didn't happen. Instead we got the opposite with more green house gases because the nuclear industry in the U.S. was stifled.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Still waiting on any proof that control measures will somehow change 300 years of industrialization fast enough but proponents usually don't address that part.

alc, let me ask you - how many auto mechanics do take your car to before accept their consensus that you need a new transmission? Denying that global warming is being greatly accelerated by carbon emissions is akin to the flat earth deniers, only this isn't 14th Century and we aren't just emerging out of the Dark Ages. You'd have to believe in some kind of conspiracy among such organizations as the American Meterological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.