Charles, there is a lot of good information out there on ice conditions and ages.  Try the National Snow and Ice Data Center's web site to start, and the NASA Goddard Institute site.

Well every board that is replaced with an alternative material is exactly that.  If that alternative material is carbon sequestered from environment, then its that too. 

If one company were to invest in this, and start production - do you not expect people would want more fire-proof and rot-proof homes?  It would catch on, especially when they can say that a house has 1 ton of carbon (off the cuff number since I have no idea what the weight would be) taken out of the environment.

Im not an advocate of any of these causes really.  Not environmental, not amazon, but I do like better products, safer homes, lighter cars that burn less fuel while still having monstrous power ... and I do feel that if ALL of the above interests were to work together, a better picture could be painted.  One that benefits all of us, rather than create another artifical market (carbon polluting rights) cthat benefits the few, and cost the masses.

Back into government funds: of course it will.

I for one, have had it, not from democrats or republicans, but government at large with their schemes to "improve" things, whilst sitting on stocks in the new markets they create which they purchased long before these markets go mainstream.  How convenient, no?  They plan and design these things and are personally invested in them. 

Then of course, they plan to funnel money back into government, which is always going to be used for the greater good.. well they just put a 2000% increase on my tobacco to pay for SCHIP, and now they want to tax my beer to pay for everyone's health.   If you believe for one second they will return the carbon profits to you, while they need to spend money this bad; ive got a bridge to sell you.

We're already paying, John.  Our grandparentsand parents paid for the interstate highways and bridges that helped the automakers get rich.  We're paying now to try and fix the automakers and the bridges both, along with the waterworks and other public infrastructure that were ignored for decades, because no one took responsibility and funded government budgets to keep them in good repair. 

We're paying when people without health insurance end up in emergency rooms with asthma and heart disease from air pollution.  

We pay when companies take the government to court, trying to avoid clean air regulations so that they can keep creating and pouring that pollution into the atmosphere.

We'll continue to pay as more and more people on the coasts are denied home insurance due to increased risks from storms and floods, due to climate changes.

My generation will probably be paying for the rest of our lifetime to clean up the mistakes of the past 40 years.  And that's if things go right and not wrong!  If it means I'll die of natural old age instead of a busted heart clogged with particulates of burned coal and car tires, and that my nieces will have clean drinking water and affordable food and snow in the winter, I can live with it.  (I'm by no means in a high tax bracket, by the way!)

You already have particulates in your lungs, not to mention a small amount of lead in your blood. The poison is in the dose.
I'm with John here. The government has proven time and time again that it can't "solve" problems and only creates new problems with each solution. This cap-and-trade plan is so convoluted it reaches 1000 pages, full of special favors for special interests. If Washington was really concerned with cutting carbon emissions, it would impose a straight carbon tax. If they were really concerned with energy independence, they would impose an oil-import tax. Both of these measures would take up one page and require the help of no lobbyists. But that's not how Washington works.

One page?  No lobbyists?  Can't wait to report on that.

Cite you sources...

Answer your own question - how much CO2 is put out by volcanoes. Give a comparison to other sources of CO2. C'mon people - y'all blast climate scientists (or Al Gore - how tiresome that is!) and can't even cobble together a reasonably supported argument yourselves. 

Hmmm Tom...how did the earth get out of that last ice age (glacial age) without the help of the pesky humans and their greenhouse gas emissions?  Must have been the dinocarus. If I recall correctly there were other glacial ages and ice-free periods in earth's history long before we could have scewed it up. The only thing more tiresome than listening to people blast Al Gore is the fact that his hypocritcal jetsetting ass is ubiquitous and stands to make a fortune from the idiocy that is Cap and Trade.

Actually, 2005 is the hottest year on record, second only to 1998, since record-keeping began in the late 1800's, according to NASA.  If you click on the link, you'll see a very good graph that charts the global surface temperature from the 1880's to 2005.

Temperatures were definitely cooler on average in the 1930's.

A significant factor about 2005 as opposed to 1998 (which differed only by hundredths of a degree), is that in 1998, temperatures were hotter in part due to the tropical El Nino -- the strongest in 100 years.  There was no El Nino in 2005.

I thought 1934, not 1998 or 2005 was the warmest on record because of the drought that had caused the Dust Bowl.

As I understand it, there was a series of four droughts across the 1930's, with 1934 being a particularly warm year on average. The impacts of these droughts were worsened by bad land management practices. 
Here's a great article about that period from the National Drought Mitigation Center:
http://drought.unl.edu/whatis/dustbowl.htm


The classic documentary film of the era, demonstrating the destruction of the vast Great Plains grasslands, is "The Plow That Broke the Plains."  Highly recommended highlight of Americana!

I've been going back over some of the temperature records of the past few years, and it looks like NASA and NOAA are in a debate about which are the hottest years on record for the United States.  The info that I linked to above has been superceded by reports for 2006 and subsequent years.  I'm going to have to sit down and crunch some numbers, because unfortuanately NOAA's web site has not yet been pulled into the present in terms of how it presents data.

  There's been some scientific discussion of the 1934 v 1998 records, but as climate scientist Gavin Schmidt puts it,  
"More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC)...In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest..."


It would be pleasant to take some reassurance vis global warming from these re-analyses of historical data, but unfortunately, the Arctic doesn't seem to be getting that message.

It's interesting that Schmidt believes the minor deviations in temperature data are trivial that now make more years from the Thirties among the hottest on record than from the last decade.  When the deviations swung the results the opposite direction, the deviations seemed very important indeed.  Even the language has changed again, not unlike "global warming" to "climate change."  Before the focus was very much on individual year records and numbers of years in the top 10--not global, five-year means.  The goalpost-moving is rather transparent and doesn't inspire confidence.

The more significant issues to me are that the numerous models themselves don't agree with each other; there's a distinct divergence in the various temperature datasets over the last few years; and not least, the IPCC reports from 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 are inconsistent even with each other.  The predictions of the '07 report actually backtrack from those of '01.  And yet I'm supposed to believe that "the science is settled."  The amount of debate about how to properly collate, splice, and zero the *numerous* temperature datasets at issue--much less the lack of openness in making source data available for critique--ought alone be enough to give pause to anyone rushing to conclude that the science is settled.

At the bottom of the skeptical mindset--at least the honestly held one, IMO--are two overriding concerns: 1) That there seems to be an overreliance on modeling without first assuring the integrity of the data-gathering; and 2) the forecasts provided by those models don't actually model reality very well (perhaps because of #1?), and are severely limited by the time frame they've had to be tested.

Put all of it together and I wonder how anyone--why anyone--would be ready to bet the wind farm on economic programs and regulations the ramifications of which would be globally devastating.  As in most things, moderation is a virtue.  To those who say we don't have time for moderation, I direct you to a few billion years of Earth history and ask, where's the rush?

The more accurate conceptualization is that the science of climate is evolving, not that the goalposts are moving.  And unless I've misread something, you're incorrect that there are more years from the 1930's that are warmer on average, globally (not just in North America), than from the past decade.  Of course I want to be accurate in how I cover such things, so could you point that out?
Either way, though, there's a very clear upward trend in temperature.  While the difference between 1998 and 1934 is in the hundreths of a degree, the overall shift in global temperatures from then until now is in the tenths of a degree.  Doesn't sound like much to us, as we're adapted to many extremes of climate, but it's enough to transform and destabilize ecologies on land and in the ocean.


The linguistic changes you mention are not exactly rocket science, or dark signs of a conspiracy.  The term "climate change" was first suggested by a GOP strategy advisor, Frank Luntz, in the 1990's, as a means for that party to discuss global warming in a way that was considered disarming to proponents of action, and soothing to the public.  

More recently, researchers have often opted for "climate change" as opposed to "global warming," because they feel climate change is a more accurate description of what's happening:  As surface temperatures warm, the climate is becoming more unstable.  In some geographic areas this may result in a cooling effect; overall it's making conditions hotter.  

In all cases, it's important to keep in mind that human-propelled global warming is happening against the backdrop of regular variations in climate, as well as the weather for the next day, week, or month.  This level of complexity in how the Earth's systems interact argues for a much more proactive and truly conservative response to how we're forcing changes on the globe's overall climate.  

The inadequacies of models only argue for that more, especially as we're already seeing changes, such as the degree of ice loss in the Arctic, that are outracing some forecasts based on climate modeling.  

For want of a quotation mark, the post was butchered.  (But colorful!)

Let's try that again:

I'm not incorrect.  NASA/Goddard was forced to adjust the GISS dataset in August 2007 after a software bug was spotted in it (by a skeptic, no less).  The top ten hottest years of the last century, from the top, are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939.  That's six from before 1953, and only one from the last ten years.  1998, once the hallowed "hottest year in the last thousand years," doesn't even make the top ten of the 20th century.

Nor do I believe I'm incorrect about my characterization of goalposts being moved.  Your own language shows it.  When 1998 was the big bad, no caveat about global 5-year means was considered necessary.  Now it is.  (Considering the dearth of long-term historical surface temperature data from around the globe, it's probably not wise to be trying to sell the global mean idea either.)

And now it's the champions of the AGW view, not just Republican strategists, who are using "climate change" instead of "global warming," much out of character from previous years.  It's got nothing to do with it being more scientifically accurate; scientifically it's meaningless.  Of course the climate changes; it's done so since the Earth formed.

You're right that the science of climate is evolving, but that's *why* the goalposts are being moved.  They have to: The models aren't matching observed reality.  There's been no statistically significant warming in at least ten years.  Say what you will about long-term trends, the models didn't predict it.  And we're told that's normal for global warming.  Arctic sea ice, contrary to your posts, according to at least two official sources has been trending up since 2007.  I'm reminded of Robin Williams' take on Moammar Ghaddafi in the '80s: "Okay, you cross *this* line, you die!"

"In all cases, it's important to keep in mind that human-propelled global warming is happening against the backdrop of regular variations in climate, as well as the weather for the next day, week, or month."

Presuming, of course, that human-propelled global warming is happening much if at all.  This is so much question-begging.  Since the models purporting to substantiate both are unpredictable in their ability to replicate past trends and predict present ones, and the observational data are so uneven and subject to statistical misinterpretation, on the contrary, I would argue that the conservative response would be to make no sudden moves toward a guaranteed economic upheaval based on such things.  Don't take my word for it; take that of the IPCC itself.  The Summary for Policymakers from IPCC-2007 features a prominent graph on page four showing the "Level of Scientific Understanding" (LOSU) for the nine inputs that they believe affect our climate.  Four of them--*almost half*--are given a scientific understanding of *low*, and *two more* low to medium.  If the IPCC itself considers over half of the inputs used to base its predictions (which, recall, have been *lowered* from previous years) to be minimally understood, I have no qualms believing the jury is still out.

Your conclusion is just as circular:

"The inadequacies of models only argue for that more, especially as we're already seeing changes, such as the degree of ice loss in the Arctic, that are outracing some forecasts based on climate modeling."

What?  If the models are inadequate, as you admit, how can you tell if any observed phenomena is "outracing" the results of those models?  How can you properly determine a change has occurred if the very criteria you're using as a baseline is the result of a faulty model?  Much less use it as a basis for pushing the entire global community to take emergency actions with huge economic and social ramifications?

C H, that chart is of annual surface temperature anomalies, meaning how much the average temperature differed from the norm.  

However you came away from those data believing that the ten hottest years in the past century are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939, NASA itself disagrees:
"In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C , so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record."
- GISS Surface Temperature AnalysisGlobal Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summationhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/


Er um hm, model are not inadequate -- that's being twisty with my words.  I said they have inadequacies, which is certainly not a shocking revelation to anyone who follows climate science.You'll find that many researchers themselves cite that as a reason to cut greenhouse gas emissions now, as fast as possible, since there's always room for things to be even worse than the models suggest.  That's the nub of MIT's update to its research, in fact.

I think the models are not reliable. Look at this chart comparing temperatures in NYC with those taken at West Point, a mere 50 miles north:http://www.john-daly.com/stations/WestPoint-NY.gif
I understand that the models are supposed to take into account the Urban Heat Island effect, but you can't be sure that it's done in a scientifically honest fashion. The modelers are trying to derive useful data from stations which have been compromised, rather than throwing the data out. Thus, much of the data used by the models is already transformed to correct it one way or the other. The decisions about how to transform the data vary widely and may influence the models to the point of rendering them useless. See this analysis of whether the climate model forecasts are reliable:http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/no-scientific-forecasts-to-support-global-warming/

NASA doesn't disagree.  The GISTEMP chart clearly shows the years I listed as the hottest years in the contiguous U.S. back to 1880.  My original point on this, based on your raising the issue in your first post in the thread, is that it was those records--not the global means that your latest link describes--that were the focal point the AGW view for years.  But in the past few years, and especially since the adjustment that places more hotter years before 1953 than after, the focus of the AGW argument has shifted toward the global mean.

And once again, I'm not arguing that there hasn't been a warming trend over the last thirty years.  I do argue that there's not enough data yet to conclusively link that warming to human activity rather than a natural cycle, and that the models being used are too imperfect--knowledge of the systems on which they're based being still too limited--to justify extreme scenarios and drastic action.    (Not to mention the fact that the timeframe to determine models' predictive power is still woefully short.)

You say they have inadequacies, but aren't themselves inadequate.  I'd argue that depends on the scope of the inadequacy.  It's still a major point of contention as to whether water vapor--about as basic and determinative a criteria as there could be--produces a positive or negative feedback.  The multi-model mean across several models has been deviating from observational data for some time.  Hence my personal skepticism about the predictive powers of the various GCMs, and any efforts premised on their predictions.

Which brings me to this: I know that if the model predictions began to mirror reality better than they do, and those eminent climatologists and scientists in closely related fields who presently question the AGW view began to swing to that view, I'd be persuaded to accept it myself.  I have to ask: What would it take for someone like yourself to be persuaded in the other direction?  Schmidt himself says in the comments on his blog that if the cooling continues for another decade or so, they'll have to question the efficacy of the theory.  (I should hope so.)  What will it take for Emily?

CH, you're cherry picking the facts.  For instance, trends in Arctic ice for the past couple years don't change the fact that Arctic sea ice cover is in a well recorded, overall, steady decline that stretches back decades, faster than natural causes alone can account for.  


You seem to take a couple cooler years as proof that decades of data and analysis are incorrect.  You suggest that scientists improving upon their earlier work and refining the scope of the problem *so that we can understand it better and act more effectively to correct it,* means that the whole process is bankrupt.


You're apparently demanding that I demonstrate in some way *other* than the work that I do here, as a journalist, as well as for other publications and web sites, a flexibility or intellectual rigor that I seldom witness in people who discount the abundant, mainstream, peer-reviewed, scientifically unimpeachable findings that confirm the reality of AGW.  

See the chart of ice-out dates from the Nenana Ice Classic:
http://www.john-daly.com/nenana.htm
I see no warming trend there. As for the Arctic ice, see these two charts:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090504_Figure3.pnghttp://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090504_Figure2.png
Ice extent data only goes back to 1979 (anything before that would be difficult to compare with today's measurements) and while there is a downward trend during that time, I don't see anything unusual about ice levels this year. A few more cold years and scientists will have to reevaluate their predictions about arctic sea ice.
And again, even in a warmer world, whatever the reason, it is likely that Antarctica would gain ice rather than lose it. Thus, concerns about rising sea levels should be tempered by looking at possible benefits of an ice-free arctic (shipping lanes, oil drilling, etc.)
CH is simply suggesting that the science is far from settled, and that in fact, major climate scientists disagree with the notion that AGW is a main driver of climate. He is also reminding us that the models' past predictions of warming have never been correct and are simply an extrapolation from past data. Thus, the burden of proof for this massive carbon trading scheme, which will never go away if it passes, rests with the proponents of such schemes. And the proof is severely lacking.

I was a kid in the 70's and the news media and periodicals were making a big deal of global cooling.  I remember being afraid my family would freeze to death or starve to death from a lack of food due to cooling. 

After reading Fleck and Connolly's piece I find it a contentious, politically charged tome.  Simply calling the cooling scare a myth and stating there is too much period news media to track down is shirking the responsibility they assumed when they undertook this work.  At the time the populous really only had the news/periodicals to impart such information to them as there was no Internet for the masses to search the scientific literature.  As such the recollections of many of us that we were inundated with global cooling is not a myth but a reality. 

Whatever the popular press was reporting, there was no "scientific consensus" in the 1970's on global cooling.  That's the notion often trotted out by people seeking to discredit the science behind our understanding of climate change.  Fleck et al. set out to debunk that myth and they succeeded.

"Whatever the popular press was reporting, there was no 'scientific consensus' in the 1970's on global cooling." 
Hmmm, kinda like now.

There is a scientific consensus now. Overall world temperatures are getting warmer, largely due to human activity.

World temps are dropping. And I was also one of the suckers who fell for the Left's "ICE AGE" scare tactic in the 1970s.

The only reason there is any so-called 'consensus' within the IFCC is because, if you disagreed, you were drummed out - that's how much of a fraud this is. Any intelligent person can see that it's all about controlling the population, and restricting Civil Rights.

This is the DemoKKK-Rats attempt at hobbling the poor and minorities - who will not be able to afford to buy carbon credits, and therefor would be less likely to travel - to such things as demonstrations in protest of the Totalitarian DemoKKKrat state.

They're using FEAR to control you.

There was an interesting program on TV lately, I think the History channel.  It made a very clear correlation between the solar cycles and cooling/warming trends on Earth.  

It really makes sense becase at solar maximum the ionosphere is alight with plasma, which is very very hot.  Anyone who fails to see this as a source of heat is just ignoring basic physics.

Oh, and the recent cooling which some global warming nuts are trying to say "is a symptom of global warming", well.. we just passed a solar maximum a few years ago, and scientists are expecting we are headed toward a solar minimum - the most recent of which happened to coincide with the recent times' mini ice-age.

I will not downplay the CO2, though. I do not believe we should be altering Earth's chemistry without limits - eventually something is going to give, even if it isnt global warming.

As I said in my previous post, the technology to "freeze" CO2 from the atmosphere is ancient tech, and we could put this captured CO2 to work if we find an economical process to split it back into pure carbon and oxygen.   Elemental carbon has MANY industrial uses, including some that could greatly improve the way we live and do things, if there was a greater affordable abundance of it.

"It really makes sense becase at solar maximum the ionosphere is alight with plasma, which is very very hot.  Anyone who fails to see this as a source of heat is just ignoring basic physics."
John, you are on to something, but I'm not sure the heating in the ionosphere has much effect on the surface temperature record. The issue is whether the models are really an accurate depiction of the Earth's climate. When you look at all the transformations and assumptions made with regards to the data, the models start to look much less credible. As an example, consider the "urban heating" effect in temperature readings. Any given temperature station may report higher temperatures over time due to changes in the land surrounding it. Scientists claim to make all the necessary adjustments to account for this effect, but in reality it is a fudge. It does not feel scientific to me.

Mark,
Solar cycles have at most a minor effect on the current upward temperature trends the earth is now experiencing. Check it out:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

This website is funded by NASA and Stanford University.

"...human-propelled climate changes are happening along with natural climate fluctuations, such as the El Nino/La Nina cycle in the Pacific."

All but the first two words of that are entirely correct and accepted by pretty much everyone.  "Human-propelled," however, at this stage of the game, is pure conjecture.

Heh.

Emily, it seems you are concerned about the sea level. Please consider that the sea level has varied by huge amounts in the past and will continue to do so. What's more, I think it is quite impossible for Antarctica, which holds the majority of the Earth's ice, to lose even a small amount of ice. The geography of Anarctica--continental land mass surrounded by water--ensures that it will always get a large amount of snow that wil not melt due to the continent's latitude. Even in a 10 degree hotter world, Antarctica would have the same weather patterns, and probably see more snowfall.
So let's not get worked up about the sea level. People will adapt to any natural or man-made changes to their environment, as they have since time immemorial.

Excuse me, that should read "dihydrogen oxide," not "hydrogen dioxide."

You're letting partisanship influence your opinion on this scientific question, which is far from settled. Even the IPCC report (not the summary) is filled with caveats about the lack of understanding about many of the major drivers of climate.

Global climate change is not a political issue, though you seem to be trying to make it one. How we attempt to solve it is political process, but facts are facts. Among scientists, the factual question is settled. Global climate change is happening now, it is largely the result of human activity, and the results will not be good for much life on earth, including humans. We are still working out the details. This is what the IPCC report says.
Do you work for a big energy company?

"D:" Judging from your statements, you do not appear to understand what "peer review" means. They are not my "friends." Most of "them" I don't know and never will know. I am not even "one of them." But there are a lot of them, they are quite smart, and, despite your sarcasm, it is nonetheless the way science works. You benefit from the results of peer-reviewed science ALL THE TIME, and suffer from poor decisions made without using complete scientific knowledge, whether you know it or not.
Fifty years ago, some doctors used to remove tonsils and adenoids all the time if they got infected. They didn't know what their function was, so they "assumed" they didn't do anything! It wasn't a scientific decision, and many people suffered greatly as a result. The scientists have finally figured out what their function is, and now they don't remove them nearly as often, because we know they do something very useful, and we weigh that knowledge against the deleterious effects of the infection.
Are you afraid of mercury, or arsenic, or lead, or nitrogen, or selenium, or carbon monoxide, or even "hydrogen dioxide?" These things are all elements or very simple molecules in your body right now IN THE PROPER AMOUNTS. Change the balance of any of these at out of neglect or scientific ignorance, and you will suffer and die. The same applies to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

How many of your assumptions above are science-based, and how many are just your own "guesstimation" or worse, wishful thinking? And how self-righteous and know-it-all is that? And what should I make of "only the truth can set you free?" Sounds like religious tract to me.
In this instance, I will trust good science over what appears to be your opinion.

Excuse me, that should read "dihydrogen oxide," not "hydrogen dioxide."

It's probably just as well you don't, there are already so many of them out there - like Al Gore is somehow "getting rich" on advocating strong action to counteract global warming, or that doing nothing about global warming is a Republican plot that will raise the sea levels which will flood RED states (!), or that a cap-and-trade policy on CO2 is somehow an "energy tax"...
Unfortunately, I think it is going to get much worse before it gets better...
Thanks for all you are doing to help inject facts into the debate!

Craig, have you seen this legislation? Over 1000 pages, with giveaways to every special interest under the sun. Why not just a carbon tax?
If this bill passes, there will be a huge new asset with all of those evil corporations you mention being the primary owners. There will be no end to the corruption in Washington that comes from this bill.
And as for making decisions based on faulty logic, please understand that any action on climate change and renewable energy will destroy more jobs than it creates, as has been the experience in Spain. So please stop arguing that this carbon trading legislation will be some kind of economic boost. It will make everything more expensive, and have the added benefit of being a new source of revenue for the government to use for all their pet projects. No thank you.

Craig, I'm really glad to hear that you're teaching students how to evaluate the value of the info they find on the internet.  When I taught some college classes in the early-mid 1990's, it was near impossible to get across to my students how to judge the relative worth of different sources of information.  (Kind of like it is in these here comments, today.)

The Internet courses have taken the place of the research courses of yore - courses that taught the proper use of the library card catalog, etc. They became necessary as more professors allowed web research for assignments, and of course, the ensuing problems of directly copying from web sources. It's the same game, just new technology. I like the courses, though!

Runaway GCC is just a theory, which like most of the others promoted here, is totally untestable. It's entirely possible that higher temperatures will lead to greater plant growth and, in turn, lower CO2 levels.
As for what it will do to the economy, I can pretty much say unequivocally that warming would improve it. Huge land areas on Canada and the northern U.S. would become much more productive.
Regarding creating vs. destroying jobs, common sense dictates that the government cannot simply create jobs by spending money, or by making an input in production more costly. The costs of either action will have to be borne by the rest of society one way or ther other, and there will be a net loss to the economy (something economists call a "dead-weight loss"). If you are still not convinced look at a recent study done on Spain's investments in renewable energy:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0
Each "green job" created cost $774,000 and caused 2.2 jobs to be lost elsewhere.

Mark,

  I question your definition of the word "theory." There are a number of different definitions for the word "theory." One is: "abstract thought: speculation." A related one is: “an unproved assumption: conjecture." This DOES NOT apply to what science is talking about when the phrase “the theory of global climate change (GCC)” is used. The usual scientific definition of the term "theory" is: "the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art." Notice - "OF A BODY OF FACT." (These definitions are from Webster on line.)   
The “theory” of GCC is the group of principles that explain the facts at hand: The world’s average temperature is rising. This rise cannot be adequately explained by any know phenomena or cycle other than the release of large amounts of CO2 by humans since the dawn of the industrial age. These are facts. The theory explains the facts. Could it be something else? Peer-reviewed science says that is HIGHLY unlikely. An example: I COULD be losing my hair because my tight-fitting hat is wearing it off. I may want to believe this, but medical science has a better “theory” to explain that unfortunate phenomena, one that is a little less obvious. 
This “switch the definition” tactic is the same tactic that some use to argue against the “theory” of evolution – “it’s only a theory!” Just like evolution, human-caused GCC is a scientific fact – the details are not thoroughly understood, but the basic outline now is, and it doesn’t look good for humans. 
Higher overall global temperatures will make for more arid conditions and more temperature extremes (both hot and cold) in different parts of the world. Neither one of these changes is likely to be better for most plants. Remember, only ten species (or so) of plants stand between the modern world and total global starvation. And then there are the ever-increasing human land-use patterns, the clear-cutting of forests and the overgrazing of grasslands, and big corporate farms which continue to cause topsoil to erode away… and don’t forget all the methane gas expelled by the fat, happy (!) cows that we kill for meat (methane is about 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2, and useless to plants), in turn increasing GCC. None of this looks good for plants. 
And that’s just your first paragraph! 
I must say, I don’t believe your predictions about the economy and GCC. Even if we do nothing about atmospheric CO2 levels, fossil fuel energy costs are going to increase steadily, because we are using up all the easy (and least polluting) stuff to get. And look at the countries with the most reserves – big troublemakers, mostly! Factoring in GCC, some areas of the world will get more temperate. But the Sahara is already expanding – which is the basic cause of the genocide in Darfur. And GCC threatens to melt all the glaciers in the Himalayas, which provides fresh water to half the people on the earth. And you don’t even mention rising sea levels! NYC, LA, Houston, Seattle, Washington, Boston… common sense dictates that this does not look like a pleasant or peaceful future. I didn’t even get into the bit about methane gas being released by thawing permafrost, or the acidification of the world’s oceans (which is destroying coral reefs), or the increasing power of hurricanes. So what if Canada and the USA become more productive (which I don’t believe for a moment will happen) – what do you tell the rest of the world? “Go get your own climate?” As the users of more of the world's resources per person than any other country, does the USA have any responsibility here?
We are the richest society that the world has ever known. I believe we can afford to NOT destroy the environment - for us or for anyone else. In fact, I believe we can’t afford to destroy it! 
Oh, I went to the Bloomberg website and read the article. The first line of the article states: “Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.”  We are not talking about subsidizing renewable energy the way that Spain did. We are talking about a cap-and-trade policy on CO2 emissions, which will make the playing field level for cleaner energy sources to compete in an OPEN MARKET! If you produce too much CO2, you pay a FINE. It is NOT an “energy tax,” or a “subsidy.” It is a fine to help pay to mitigate for the atmospheric mess caused by the release of the excess CO2. And if the whole world does it, which there is growing pressure in other countries to do, there will be no place else to go. It is a GLOBAL problem, and the whole world is beginning to realize it, and to work to solve it. 
Money recovered from a CO2 fine could be used in many ways – my favorite idea is to invest it in scientific research to help solve more of the world’s toughest problems. What a thought!  

I question your equating scientific theories related to hair loss, evolution, with the theory of AGW. The former are based on hypotheses of processes explaining a given phenomenon; they are falsifiable and tested, and thus well accepted. AGW is a theory based on the idea that correlations between CO2 and temperature are based on a causal effect, and that there is furthermore a "multiplier effect" caused by changes in water vapor. While the process behind CO2 causing temperature increase is well understood, the feedbacks which occur worldwide are not. The multiplier may in fact be a divider; climate science does not yet know the answer to this question. Please note that I was more concerned with your usage of the prefix "runaway" which suggests a hypothetical scenario in which climate change feeds on itself without human effects at all. This theory cannot be tested and does not make sense considering the huge CO2 and temperature changes in the past half billion years. Supervolcanoes, already mentioned, have put huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past, and there was no runaway effect then.
Cap-and-trade most certainly IS an energy tax, one that promises to be unevenly distributed based on political power. That means a huge new lobbying industry just for carbon politics. Washington will be picking winners and losers, and redistributing tax revenue in a way which they hope will keep warring factions happy. History shows that this will only make politics more contentious. And the comparison to Spain is apt, as revenues from this plan will be used to subsidize green industry in exactly the same way.
Meanwhile there are a host of environmental issues which are being neglected because of the focus on climate change. Deforestation and loss of species, for instance, is a totally separate issue from the scientific question of AGW. The political issue of energy independence is, again, totally separate from the scientific question. We have enough coal in the U.S. to last 1000 years and enough uranium to last a million, not to mention a huge reserve of untapped oil in Alaska. If we were really concerned with energy independence we would explore those avenues, but I don't see that happening.

One more thing. You wrote, "And if the whole world does it, which there is growing pressure in other countries to do, there will be no place else to go."
I assume you are talking about the issues of climate change treaties vis-a-vis developing countries like India and China. If you believe they will accept the higher cost (economic and human by the way) of renewable energy as they grow their economies, I have a bridge to sell you. If we pass this law, the most likely consequence will be further outsourcing of our manufacturing base to those countries. It is like economic disarmement, and in the middle of a recession! Sounds like madness to me.

Mark,
I did not equate "scientific theories related to hair loss, evolution, with the theory of AGW" other than to show a common misuse of the term "theory" in your argument. It was a critique of your logic, not of comparing the three theories scientifically. But now that you mention it, how is evolution more "falsifiable and tested" than global climate change (GCC)? 
By "runaway" I was not referring to a climate process. I was talking about the growing amount of CO2 humans are releasing into the atmosphere, and the corresponding rise in average world temperatures. 
CO2 cap-and-trade is no more a tax than a hunting license is a "hunting tax," or a fine for polluting is a "sewage tax." Are you using the word "tax" for the fear it causes in certain people who disapprove of the way the government spends "their" money? This trick is getting old.
The government will only get into "picking winners and losers" or distribute money unevenly "based on political power" if people don't pay attention and allow the government to do that. Such problems have always been there and at least the potential will always be there; unlike you, I don't believe this is a good enough excuse not to respond to GCC.
It is also, at this point, impossible to say with any degree of certainty where any money obtained from a cap-and-trade CO2 policy will be spent.
Deforestation and endangered species ARE NOT separate from the question of GCC, either biologically or politically. That is just wishful thinking. The rapid expansion of the pine beetle into the lodgepole pines of the Rocky Mountains or the status of the Pika or Polar Bear are three biological examples. The Endangered Species Act itself is a political example. You can't protect critical habitat for many species if you can't control GCC!
Energy independence is a myth. What I want is clean, affordable energy. I don't want to be beholden to a few despotic countries. All markets are or soon will be global.
I don't need a bridge at the moment, but you might be interested in this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/18/secret-us-china-emissions-talksDoes the idea of countries acting together for a better future still sound so mad? I think you underestimate the intelligence of some of the citizens and the leaders of other countries.
One more thing - I am wondering why you are on this blog. The dirty energy companies have spent over $100 million since January on advertising to prevent substantial action on GCC. The fossil fuel lobby has spent over twice as much as all non-profits combined lobbying against GCC action so far this year. It is definitely not out of the question that lobbyists for big energy corporations could be paid to monitor and write on these blogs. While this would certainly not be illegal, to do this clandestinely might be considered by some to be unethical.
Your arguments are right from the dirty energy playbook. You do not use your full name. You insist on calling it "global warming" rather than the far more accurate "global climate change." Do you work for, or profit from the big energy corporations? 
 

Sorry, the website messed up the link. Here it is again:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/18/secret-us-china-emissions-talks

Oh, interesting.  Mark O uses the "Washington will be picking winners and losers" line.  I myself just yesterday ran a quote from a legislator who said that.  I didn't realize that it was an anti-carbon cap talking point.

It's funny that you think I'm working for an energy company, as if there could not be any serious objections to this monstrous piece of legislation, arrived at independently after looking at the facts.
If you look at my profile page you can find a link to the Fair Trade company I work for, where you will find my name. I'm just not interested in people being able to google everything I write online too easily.

I came to this page because I received an email from change.org with the subject "Global Warming Underestimated" and felt that i had to respond.
Here is how evolution is different from AGW: Evolution is a theory that says new species are created by random mutations which are selected for naturally. Scientists have observed these mutations in the lab and archaeologists have documented evidence of transitional species. The theory can be falsified by showing other procesess at work or find evidence of a new species created by an intelligent designer or whatever.
AGW, as I have explained, attempts to describe the Earth's climate, which is already poorly understood, as dominated by CO2. This is based on 30 to 100 years of data, opposed to the vast geological timescales on which major climate changes take place. Some of the processes involved in the theory have been observed in a lab while others are merely inferred based on worldwide data. I have huge issues with the data and how they are using it, and you should too. Look at this site for an analysis of station placements and tell me that the data is not compromised:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

If you look at well-placed weather stations, in rural areas which have not changed over time, you will see no major temperature changes over time. I have already given the example of West Point, NY as compared to Central Park in NYC.

The IPCC's position on AGW is ultimately based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of climate, which is only one of three hypothesis that may be true:
http://climatesci.org/2008/05/02/three-climate-change-hypotheses-only-one-of-which-is-true/
I believe that the models are using tainted data, which has in some cases been hand-edited, and in other cases has been "correlated" with other data in an unscientific fashion, and on top of all that it's just "data mining" where you keep changing the model until it fits the data. That does not make the predictions any more useful, just an extrapolation of the limited data you have.
Since the cap-and-trade proposal is estimated to bring in over a trillion dollars in revenue for the federal government, I would call it a tax. Hunting permits are totally different in that they are not attempting to make hunting more costly by charging more for the permits.

If you want a fair and equitable sytem, you would auction all of the carbon permits. The current scheme proposed by congress is not a 100% permit auction, but instead 85% giveaway to industry:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286407955141345.html
Some of these industries will begin to derive most of their profits from this new "asset" created out of thin air by Congress. Every year will be another chance for industry to influence the costs of various industries and thus pick winners and losers. This is a totally unpredictable system for investors and will cause less investment in energy, leading to a worse energy situation for the country. You can call it a "talking point" but it's a very real issue which we should seek to minimize. You do not want greater control over the economy by Washington, it leads to tyrannical outcomes. So I say, if you are interested in making carbon more expensive, why not a straight carbon tax? At least that will force all industries to compete on a level playing field.

Craig,

I think Mark is mostly worried about the government taking up on another role that could be detrimental to society.  I don't think he's trying to fight the idea of global warming as much as the idea of big government.

He works for a Fair Trade company, so he understands the ideas of sustainability, yet he also has a legitimate concern over the government's role in all of our lives.

I think overall y'all are just trying to decide which solution is the best when it comes to capping CO2 emissions.  I agree that a direct tax on petrol, for example, would be more direct and less dirty (in terms of politics).  Cap-and-trade just sounds like a recipe for disaster, it opens up too many corruption possibilities, and then people getting into that market will try to take advantage of it and cheat the system just like investment bankers did on wall street.

Speak for yourself Juan. I am trying to fight both ideas :)
And the crux of the issue is that we must not be cowed into using the precautionary principle here. You may think that there's a 90% chance that humans cause climate change (as the IPCC claims), but not only do I think that's based on false assumptions and bad data, but that 90% is not even good enough when you are talking about the largest economic intervention ever attempted by the Federal government since the National Recovery Act (and we all know how that turned out).

Mark,

I don’t think you work for an energy company – I simply don’t know. I asked “Do you work for, or profit from the big energy corporations?” You still really haven’t answered that question. 
Just because evidence is not found does not mean that it doesn’t exist. Sometimes physical evidence is naturally inconclusive or misleading. What makes the theory of evolution compelling is the massive preponderance of the evidence. 
GCC (your AGW) does not posit that the earth’s climate is “dominated by CO2.” It posits that the rapid rise in CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere, clearly associated with the rise in the human use of carbon-based fuel, is causing the mean global temperature to rise. What this implies, while not fully known, will not be good for much of the life on earth. It is a theory to explain observable (or directly inferred by physical evidence) climate phenomena. And, like evolution, the preponderance of the evidence is that it is real, it is happening now, and humans are the primary cause. 
The CO2 levels of the atmosphere are documented reasonably accurately 600,000 years into the past through bubbles trapped in ice core samples of Greenland and Antarctic glaciers. Global temperatures can also be inferred much further back than 100 years. Your link is for direct measurement of temperature. Well, we also have tree ring data, ice core data, paleobotanical data, and all kinds of other geophysical data that I am no expert on, but there is a lot, lot more temperature data than what your link shows. You are not seeing the forest for the trees. 
So I am not as concerned about the discrepancies you point out, because the data set is so much larger than you seem to realize. 
As for your other link, I am still not sure that you understand what is meant by “peer review.” First of all, evaluate the web site. My favorite quote is “The views presented in the blog will necessarily have our perspective.” Add that to: “The presentation of climate science in the media, unfortunately, remains biased, as has been documented numerous times on Climate Science.” and this: “The format will be different than in the past, however, in that comments will not be permitted.” What this tells me is “My way or the Highway,” and that is the antithesis to peer review. (All this can be found at: http://climatesci.org/message-from-roger-pielke/   ) This guy has a major axe to grind, and that web site is the tool shed! 
As to his argument that there are only three possibilities of how GCC works, well, he’s just diving into semantics that have no bearing on reality. I am very unimpressed. 
No one knows yet how much money carbon permits are going to bring in. But just because the permits might bring in a lot of money does NOT imply that it must be a tax. 
Your comment about hunting actually makes my point – what cap-and-trade should do is to make dumping CO2 into the atmosphere more costly, not by charging more for the permits, but by reducing incrementally over time the amount of CO2 allowed to be dumped. This will cause the value of the permits to rise. 
And I completely agree with you, all permits should be auctioned. But as I said earlier, that will only happen if more people call their representatives and ask them to make it happen. I ask again: if it is that important to you, have you called your representatives yet? 
Most economists, climatologists, and environmentalists that accept the overwhelming evidence for GCC agree that the cap-and-trade policy is the only one that can actually bring down CO2 levels rapidly enough to affect GCC.
As for discouraging investors, that prediction is bunk. I just spent 3 hours today visiting three entrepreneurial (and successful) Austin businessmen in the green economy at their businesses, along with 50 other interested people, including representatives of three Congressmen. The green economy is ready to go. By making a level playing field between our currently heavily subsidized fossil-fuel industries and the green industries of the future, investment money will pour into the new green economy. 
“Control over the economy by Washington” IS NOT what this is about, and it’s not what is going to happen if we keep paying attention. To say that is just more of the same old fear tactics of the last 8 years. 
Americans voted for CHANGE.  

Craig,
I profit from energy companies every time I fill my gas tank. I am interested in this issue for the same reason as you: This legislation stands to fundamentally change our economy; I just think it will be for the worse.
You mentioned the tree ring and ice core data. Let's take a look at a popular reconstruction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
The only process I can see at work here is that temperature changes cause a change in CO2, not the other way around. It also shows that the Earth's climate has varied widely over the course of its history, long before humans could have affected it. Beyond that I don't think you can make meaningful comparisons to temperature data from the last 100 years. The famous "hockey stick" graphs promoted by global warming alarmists have been debunked. See the following presentation on tree ring and ice core reconstructions:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/steve-mcintyres-iccc09-presentation-with-notes/

Cap and trade is an interchangeable policy with a carbon tax. Thus it will have all the effects of a tax with the added benefit of distributing revenues/permits to the largest political contributors, and a massive bureaucracy to check how much every producer is emitting. We already have the best government money can buy, and you want to make the problem that much worse. Thank you for enabling the worst impulses of our insulated Washington elites.
And while you have confirmed for yourself that the "green economy" is going to get us out of this recession, that is like hearing about a plane crash on the news and thinking that airline travel is unsafe. It's a confirmation bias (speaking of missing the forest for the trees). While smart investors will try to profit off government interference, the rest of us will be worse off. There are widespread effects of this policy which we will be feeling for years. You might as well have said "The hole-digging economy is ready to go," thanks to all the government involvement in hole-digging.
Every person will have to suffer economically, to the tune of a couple thousand dollars per year, all for a policy which the models suggest would delay warming by two years (not that I trust the models)
Americans voted to change parties, yes. But that was mainly on the basis of the economy. I voted for BHO thinking he said "change does not come FROM Washington, change comes TO Washington." I should not have been so naive. 

I still like the guy though, cuz he's my guy.

Mark,

You twist the English language in excruciating ways. In your first phrase, you have completely confused yourself with the energy companies. By any reasonable definition of the word “profit,” the energy companies are profiting from you. Or maybe this is just sarcasm? 
There are a lot of reasons other than the one you mention why the graph on Wikipedia might show that a temperature increase may precede an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. First of all, an increase in the CO2 level is not the only factor that is capable of causing increases in atmospheric temperature. And there may even be a mechanism that causes CO2 levels to rise as temperatures increase. 
These wide variations in temperature over the course of the earth’s history that you mention have been documented, and the current rise in CO2 levels and the associated temperature increase do not fit any known cyclical pattern.  
You also continue to cherry-pick your “facts” from obviously biased web sites on the Internet. Steve McIntyre states:  “While I have a skeptical view of certain issues…” His web site is not peer reviewed, it is merely his own opinion. 
The Internet will provide support for practically any idea, no matter how outrageous. It is important to evaluate web sites before you believe what you read. To prove my point, try entering “evolution debunked” into google. It is truly amazing what the human imagination can come up with. Let the surfer beware. 
But it’s not good science. You still don’t seem to understand peer review, which is one of the most important pillars of modern science. But surveys show that most Americans do not understand the scientific process, so you are in majority there. 
Cap-and-trade is not a carbon tax. (Calling something a thing that it is not over and over again to try and make people believe it is actually an old Nazi tactic.) It is a tradable permit required for corporations to release a set amount per year of CO2 into the atmosphere in an attempt to lower the amount of CO2 released over time. It also functions as a way to counteract the massive government subsides already in place supporting CO2-releasing energy production. This will allow fair, free-market competition to encourage investment in proven and emerging clean energy technologies. We can all fight over what the government does with any extra money this generates later. 
You also are putting words in my mouth.  I have never said (or thought) that the green economy is going to get us out of this recession. We are going to get out of this recession because the American people are now paying more attention to what their government is doing and are now willing to support reigning in the excesses of greed that caused unsustainable speculation (again). Everyone is completely free to invest in anything they want – that will get us out of the recession. I take no responsibility for your (or anyone else’s) investment choices. 
You are making unsupported assumptions about other people’s motives. You have assumed that “Americans voted” for Obama “mainly” for the same reasons that you did – “the economy.” I supported and voted for Obama “mainly” because he said he supported a cap-and-trade policy for CO2 to address GCC, which I believe is one of the greatest problems humanity has ever faced. I do not agree with him on everything, but he appears to agree with me on GCC!    

Well, well, well, Mark, look what I just dug up on the Internet! You said: "The only process I can see at work here is that temperature changes cause a change in CO2, not the other way around." That's why you are not a climate scientist! Please view this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&feature=channel_pageWhose playbook are you reading from? I'd like to have a discussion with the guy who is giving you your "facts!"

Please let the above be the last reference to Nazis in this conversation, okay?

My apologies, Emily.
Once again, the link was messed up. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&feature=channel_page

How is everyone? I'm still hope to argue this issue, if you're up for it.
That youtube link refers to this paper:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728
I had to sign up to read it. I am not convinced by it, as it has very weak evidence as to the participation of CO2 in historical warming. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but that the effects of CO2 are completely dwarfed by other factors which are totally out of our control.
The youtube video also mentions a paper by James Hansen but you can't expect me to think of him as an unbiased observer, can you? Here's a guy who went to Congress with his alarmist pronouncements in 1988 and his Congressional allies turned off the A/C and let in all the hot air, in an attempt to persuade legislators. (And yet you think I'm using "global warming" incorrectly. It's just as correct as referring to "climate change", in fact it's a better description of the theory.) Hansen even testified on behalf of activists who vandalized a coal plant in England. Even his former colleagues at NASA have denounced some of his behavior. He has a mission and won't let science get in the way.
So let me reiterate: the ice core record shows a climate dominated by temperature changes with CO2 producing little if no amplifying effect, just a lag. Other attempts to reconstruct historical temperatures have relied on tree ring records which are in conflict with other records and provide almost all of the evidence of "warmest year in a millenium" pronouncements and such.
So I am not convinced by much of the historical reconstructions and still very much believe that the climate will change rapidly into the future without the help of human influence.

Charles, You have an uncomfortable decision: are you more afraid of the risks of Golbal Warming or the risks of Nuclear Power?

This is a false choice, based on NOT measuring the TOTAL energy footprint and environmental costs of current nuclear technology, from the mining of uranium to the disposal of spent fuel. 
I am SO tired of the politics of fear. We are the wealthiest society that ever existed on the face of the earth. We can do better than false choices based on what we fear the most.
Would you buy a house in the shadow of a nuclear power plant's cooling tower? 

We COULD do what we know is right and leave a clean planet for our children. What a concept!

Craig, Right now we produce about 20% of our electricity by nuclear. Are you saying that if we replaced the remaining 80% with nuclear that there would be no overall reduction in CO2 emissions?

I can agree with that. There could be much better nuclear technology to be developed - I am not outright opposed to nuclear energy. It's just that the way we have done it so far hasn't worked well enough. Because what we have now is established technology, it is less risky business-wise to stick with the old rather than develop the new - and to hell with radioactive waste! 

I don't know, I'm from the 3rd world and growing up I learned how developed countries pay poor countries to hold the radioactive waste for them.  The possibilities of nuclear energy are interesting, but I'm not sure I'm OK with the risks it can bring.

If we are going to bring down CO2 to 300 ppm in 40 years to avoid the gobal disaster that is predicted, we will need to take risks, make trade-offs, and make sacrifices. We need to push all the buttons now with the current technologies while we work at improving the technologies. Driving Priuses, paying bills on line, changing lights bulbs, and casting blame is not going to get us there in time.

But are the risks of nuclear power justifiable?  I am honestly worried about the dumping of nuclear waste on the 3rd world.  It's been put on containers that are supposed to keep them there, but at least in Central America we have earth quakes all the time, and the containers may burst.

IF y'all decide to use more nuclear energy, the waste will need to be dealt with or stored within an acceptable radius of the plant.

I'm a bit confused by this comment.  I am against nuclear power because of its risks and the waste.

Like this picture?
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
Show me the burning house.

Cherry-picker warning! John Daly is not a scientist. He states: "...for the last 9 years [I] have been one of the numerous `skeptics' speaking out publicly against the Global Warming scare, which makes exaggerated claims that the earth will warm by +1.5 to +6 deg. C. due to an enhanced Greenhouse Effect." See it here at: http://www.john-daly.com/dalybio.htm 

You know, in science, you want to find the very best data, and thus you are supposed to "cherry pick" and throw out bad data. It seems that some climate scientists are unwilling to to this.
Look at the readings of those rural stations. They all show very little or no warming.

Mark, you are focused on one set of data, the set that validates your hypothesis that global warming is not happening.  

You have reached a conclusion, and look only to the data that support your conclusion, denying data that undercut it.

Throwing out good data because it contradicts something one *wants* to be true, regardless of whether it is or is not true, is cherry-picking.


Good science, on the other hand, involves asking questions, and then gathering and analyzing information in order to find the most plausible answers to those questions. 

In credible climate science, the questions have included, "Is the Earth's surface temperature increasing at an unusual rate relative to time? "What is causing the accelerated rate of change in the Earth's surface temperature?"  "Is human activity accelerating the rate of change in the Earth's surface temperature, or is it a result of a non-human process?"

Most climate scientists affirm the theory of human-propelled global warming because of all the answers that could explain the accelerated increase in the Earth's surface temperature in the past several decades, nothing explains it better than the impacts of human activities on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

I just want to make sure people understand that when they look at the following graphs published by the IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/slides/large/05.16.jpg
They are actually looking at generated, correlated data. The graph on top is based on adjustments and assumptions which are not scientific (in my opinion) while the graph on the bottom is based on proxies which are extremely questionable and unnecessary to be included but they were anyway.

Mark,

What really amazes me is your apparently low opinion of scientists. This is an opinion that I do not share, and that I find most troubling. 
I am not a scientist. But I almost became a scientist, and I have maintained an avid interest in the natural sciences all my life. I have written about science, and I enjoy following and writing about scientific research, particularly in natural history. 
When research data is published in a scientific journal, it is peer reviewed. What this means is that each of these journals has a committee of experts in the field that reads all submitted research and decides which papers get published. These committees go over every chart and graph. If there is data that can be questioned, the paper is not published. If there is faulty logic, the paper is not published. If experiments are not repeatable, the paper is not published. To falsify data and be caught at it has ended more than a few promising careers. 
To get articles published is a requirement for advancing up the career ladder. The phrase used in academia is “publish or perish.” The process is highly competitive. To be asked to be a “peer” on one of these journal committees is a high honor, and the job is taken very seriously. Such a position consequently affects job opportunities, advancement, and, of course, salary level, and will feature prominently on the professional resume. 
I have attended a number of scientific conferences where peer reviewed papers are read. These conferences are concentrated affairs. After eight hours of intense lectures, with question-and-answer periods, panel discussions, and occasionally heated debate, everyone meets in the bar after dinner to rehash the high points of the day until the wee hours of the morning. Then all go to bed, wake up early, and repeat the process with new presentations. This will continue for a week or more. For these scientists, this is the high point of the year, because for one glorious week, they get to live, eat, and breathe the subject that they most passionately enjoy, and at the end of the conference, these scientists go home fulfilled, and our scientific understanding of the world around us is increased. 
To my credit, I can follow most of the research in my one chosen field. I am able to ask an occasional intelligent question. Through all of my own reading and research, I know just enough to be accepted as an enlightened novice in a group of masters. I feel quite lucky to be accepted at this level. 
The process is colorblind. The process knows no international boundaries. Good scientists are almost always friendly and respectful of one another regardless of race, religion, politics, or nationality. EVERYONE applauds great research. EVERYONE. 
This is why your computer works. This is why the space shuttle flies. This is why you live longer than humans did a hundred years ago. This underpins all of our modern technology. Excellent scientific research is a central pillar of America’s success. It is why America has the most powerful armed forces in the world. It is a tradition that extends back to the Greek civilization. It is one of the truly great achievements of Homo sapiens. The peer review process is a vital element in scientific research. 
Do you know how many peer reviewed climate papers say that global climate change is not happening, or if it is happening, that humans are not largely responsible? None. Zero. Zip. That is a pretty significant number. 
No personal offence is intended in the following statement, just the hard, cold logic that science demands: when Mark O. says that he doubts the data of a peer reviewed paper, a paper that has been reviewed by some of the finest climate scientists in the world, or when Mark O. says that this or that peer reviewed data is misinterpreted or skewed in some way, then without being experts in the field, we all have a choice between believing Mark O. (who has, to the best of my knowledge, no scientific credentials), or believing the international, peer reviewed scientific process of the world’s best climate scientists established over centuries by our best universities and institutions. For me, this choice is not a difficult one. But in our political process, mine is not the only opinion. 
The definition of ignorance is NOT “not knowing” something. It is “not knowing that one doesn’t know” something. If anything will be the demise of humankind, it will be ignorance. And that demise may not be so far away.    

I have enormous respect for science, just not climate science as summarized by the IPCC. If you read the report in detail, not the summaries, you will notice a long list of caveats and areas of low scientific understanding. All together you might wonder how anyone can make a coherent prediction about the Earth's climate at all.
You are making an argument from authority. I have already pointed out examples of the IPCC prominently featuring peer-review studies which say that the 1990's were the hottest decade in the millenium, studies which have now been shown to have used bad data and made bad conclusions. You know, stuff the peer reviewers should have noticed, but didn't.
So go ahead and dismiss my valid points because I don't have any credentials. I just hope others are not so quick to rely on authority. If anything will be the demise of liberty, it will be the creeping grasp of authority over the individual "because it's for your own good."

Many climate researchers have begun to note that if anything, the IPCC's published conclusions are conservative in how they have reckoned the impacts of climate change and the speed at which things are changing due to human-propelled global warming.  

The IPCC's reports take a while to write. By necessity, they rely on research published at least a few years earlier than when they were written and published.  That research, in turn, relies on data and analysis compiled in years that are further back still.

In short, as time moves forward, new information is collected.  It becomes possible to compare the 1990s to the 2000s in terms of temperature, for instance. 

A changing climate is not a static situation, and yes, it's filled with uncertainties.  But none of those possibilities include "everything will be fine if we do nothing."

Mark,
I do not "wonder" how the scientists come up with their conclusions. I am impressed by how well science generates logical explanations from great masses of often confusing observable data. That's what I mean by "respecting science."There are at least two definitions of the word "authority," and you are confusing the two. One is political authority, like the police. This is the definition that generated the phrase "question authority!" These are the only "authorities" that threaten your liberty. Scientists do not have "authority" in that sense. They have the "authority" of knowledge, as they are the experts in a complicated scientific field. You are actually questioning knowledge, or good science, by confusing it with political "authority." Without credentials, I would say you are logically on thin ice, and the world is getting warmer. I hope you can swim.By the way, peer reviewers DO notice variations in the data. They argue about it constantly. The responsibility of science is to find good explanations that explain more and more of the data, as Emily pointed out. As this process continues, what is less and less questioned are the conclusions implied by the preponderance of ALL the evidence.The world is getting warmer, and humans are largely responsible through the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.You know, I don't remember people questioning the science this much about the ozone hole. Oh, yeah - I guess there wasn't as much money envolved!

Craig, I haven't confused authorities. Please read Eisenhower's speech on the "military industrial complex" if you have not already. There are so many references to the dangers of accumulating authority in the hands of a scientific establishment.

We all have financial interests and personal biases. Even if there is a concensus among scientists, the issues I have raised indicate that there is still much to be learned in the field of climate science. I am not willing to just defer to the scientific establishment on this issue. The stakes are too high. I personally believe that this intervention by the government is unwarranted and will be a disaster. While there are plenty of people in positions of intellecutal and political authority saying the opposite, most of them stand to gain from this intervention.

There is time to study the science further. If the Earth warms for 10 to 20 years into the future, and the only explanation is human activities, then there will be time to make changes, if the benefits really outweigh the costs (which would be hard to prove but you could make the case). Don't believe anyone who tells you we have to act now, the probably stand to gain from such political actions.

I wouldn't be so passionate about this issue if I had not watched "An Inconvenient Truth." Mr. Gore could not help but paint an alarming picture, even though he should know better. There were so many misleading and untrue statements and pictures in that movie; I felt after watching it that Gore must have ulterior motives.

One danger that Eisenhower was talking about in his famous speech: 
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

was expressed as an either/or type conundrum. On the one hand, he warned: "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded." His very next sentence states: "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite." So on the one hand, he is warning about money corrupting the scientific process. On the other extreme, he is warning about government being controlled by a "scientific/technological elite." Well, which way has America gone since Eisenhower's day? I have worked in and around universities for most of my life. I can tell you unequivocally that the scientific process has not been corrupted by money. Research funding never will be totally controlled by government or corporate money in a free society such as ours. The individual human passion for answering specific scientific questions is still able to find funding to do meaningful research. There are plenty of individuals and independent, non-profit organizations out there that fund research out of pure curiosity - I am the vice-president of one such organization. The scientists that I know would sooner quit their jobs than skew evidence by being "paid off;" the peer review process would expose this kind of corruption anyway, because the process is international. Is the government now controlled by a scientific/technological elite? Judging from the last eight years, and some of the recent statements made by members of congress, all I can do is laugh at that possibility! How would the study of climate specifically be affected by either of Eisenhower's extremes? Do you think that the government or industry is influencing climate science? For eight years our government denied that global climate change (GCC) was happening, and the richest and most powerful corporations that ever existed have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to date to deny GCC. Despite this, the peer review process remains uncorrupted. What major corporations with the current resources to influence the debate stand to gain financially from taking strong actions against GCC? And if these pro-GCC forces exist, exactly how are they corrupting the peer review process? What is the mechanism? There is simply no reason to suspect this kind of corruption. Why are you so unwilling to "defer to the scientific establishment" when it comes to GCC? If it is corrupt, how is it corrupt? Why is it corrupt? Or are all the climate scientists just inferior scientists? Where is your evidence (other than your opinion) that "most of them stand to gain from this intervention?" Your unwillingness to believe the peer reviewed research does not rest on your scientific expertise. How would action against GCC affect your interests? The peer reviewed science is telling us that we don't have the 10 to 20 years you think we have before we need to take action against GCC. I say we should act now. Exactly how do you think I stand to gain from that statement? I watched the movie "An Inconvenient Truth." I also saw Al Gore deliver the speech live. In the middle of the live presentation, someone stood up and start calling him a fascist. Throughout the presentation, a van with the PETA logo on it drove around the venue with a big poster castigating Al Gore for eating meat. He is donating much of the profits from the movie and his speeches to a non-profit GCC organization. If you do a google search on the accuracy of Al Gore's movie, you will find many more reputable web sites that think the movie was accurate than those that don't. If you google Al Gore, you will find a number of down right despicable web sites criticizing Al Gore. If Al Gore wanted to make money, there are FAR easier and less abusive ways to make a buck - yes, he should know better. Just ask the president of Exxon-Mobile - but you probably don't even know his name!I believe the best decisions for the future will be made based on the best evidence provided by science, not on factually unsupported emotions such as suspicion or fear. 

I'm not suggesting that the scientific establishment is corrupt per se, just that some very loud voices with scientific credentials have poisoned the debate. There are plenty of climate scientists out there who believe the IPCC is way off in its summary of global warming, even this guy, who helped write the IPCC report in 2001:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412

And my point about "An Inconvenient Truth" is that before that film, I was skeptical but could be persuaded either way. Upon watching it, I was convinced that Al Gore cares very little about the science, considering all the distortions and even outright lies. Mentioning Hurricane Katrina, for instance--an event to which I attach a great deal of emotion--in support of his theory, seemed a particularly nasty tactic. He presents a temperature graph which is a variation on the discredited "hockey stick" graph, and speaks condescendingly about "the vaunted Medieval Warm Period" as if the data does not speak loudly enough on its own. Then he does the whole elevator routine with this graph:
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/PyrotechnicGore_thumb.jpg

That's why I had to mention the Volstok Ice Core data, because that's what he shows in the film. But he never mentions that the relationship goes the other way around.

So as a casual observer, I left the film with a feeling of anger, that someone in such a high position could try to mislead so many people deliberately. What are his motives? Some have suggested financial interests, of which Mr. Gore has many. I believe the answer is closer to what your heard from the individual who stood up and shouted at him. He, like many left-thinking individuals, believes that humankind is some kind of disease which needs to be cured. It's an ideology which says that if only the right people were in charge, they could redesign entire institutions and indeed nations from the ground up. It is the same thinking which led to the Iraq war and it is that thinking which will lead to a totalitarian state.

But hey, that's just my brain-stem-level worry. This particular legislation is doesn't even stand on its own merits, before entering into questions of right and wrong.

Let me correct myself. If you think from the brain stem only, you won't get anything done, in life and in politics. I have no idea what the future will bring, so I should not be making alarming Orwellian comments; it makes me no better than the climate doomsayers (though the discussion had already been Godwinned). We are living in the present and should be debating "The Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009". I stand by my basic points about Al Gore but we should be talking about the science and politics in more concrete terms.

I will also concede your point that very little peer-reviewed scientific literature has disputed the idea that "humans are causing global warming". I think that is because even the slightest warming still counts as warming, so it's not hard to agree with that statement, but it's not very valuable when you start talking numbers.


Here are two statements from the American Geophysical Union:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0335.html
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/2008-03.html


Here's what John Christy (linked above) said about the two statements:


"As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get."

He also wrote this opinion piece on the IPCC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm


He was one of the lead authors of the IPCC report. After meeting with other authors, he says, "I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: 'We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol.' Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process."

You need to listen more to the peer reviewed science, and less to the media. The peer review process prevents “very loud voices with scientific credentials” from poisoning the debate. It was designed to do exactly that. Nowadays, the corporate media and politicians provide the “very loud voices.”  

Your criticisms of Al Gore’s film are a repeat of a list of talking points that have circled the web for years. You present nothing new. The large majority of scientists who analyzed the film approved of Gore’s scientific accuracy. You use words and phrases like “nasty,” “cares very little for science,” “outright lies,” “discredited,” “speaks condescendingly,” and “the whole elevator routine.” It sort of makes me wonder whether you (and those whose criticisms are exactly the same as yours) and I saw the same movie. Where I can figure out to which part of the movie you are referring, I disagree with your characterizations, but many of your harshest criticisms (“outright lies,” for instance) cannot be argued from your statement, because I have no idea what facts you are talking about. So I cannot address those comments. But it is hard to ignore the venom. What is that all about? 
Did you look at the link I provided to you to explain why a rise in CO2 would follow atmospheric warming? There is a perfectly rational explanation. Al Gore even explained it in his movie. Did you evaluate it? 
It appears that you have let your emotions get away with you on this whole issue. Is this because you dislike Al Gore? You project onto his motives: “that [Al Gore]… could try to mislead so many people deliberately.” How do you know this? By the same reason you distrust certain climate data? By referring to my post, you approve of the person who called Al Gore a “fascist.” Do you know what that word means? Exactly how does this apply to Al Gore? You state: “[Gore], like many left-thinking individuals, believes that humankind is some kind of disease which needs to be cured.” Now it’s not just Al Gore’s mind you are reading, it’s also “many left-thinking individuals” as well. And then, in the most interesting twist of logic that I have yet read in your posts, you accuse George W. Bush and company (most definitely NOT a left-leaning bunch, to say the least) of the same ideology. I can only assume that these same feelings of dislike are directed at George W. Bush, also. 
In this post, it appears to me that you are reacting in a mostly emotional way to the whole topic of global climate change (don’t worry, you have lots of company there!). This was apparently triggered by Al Gore. 
The scientific process, including peer review, was designed specifically to weed out the inaccurate data, the personality, and the emotions and leave only the facts and the logic. Many people find this uninteresting. But so far, this system has worked quite well for science, and it is getting better. 
So either the world is heating up, or it is not (science says it is). The world is heating up at a measurable rate (no one is absolutely certain yet what that rate is, but we do have some reasonable projections, and the evidence is mounting that the rate is faster rather than slower, and accelerating). Something is causing this (the best science points to human activity, predominantly the release of greenhouse gasses, mostly CO2, as a major cause). 
This is not (and should not be) about emotions, or politics, or Al Gore. It is about the future of the earth, the earth’s climate, and the life that relies on that climate.  

I have read your links. The interview with John Christy is a political piece. In it, he does not account for the melting of the Arctic ice sheet, the Greenland ice sheet, or the shrinking glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas. He does not account for (or even mention) ice core data or tree ring data. He does not mention the fact that many migratory songbird breeding ranges now extend, in some cases, hundreds of miles further north than they did fifty years ago. He does not explain the disappearance of Pikas al lower altitudes (Pikas apparently can’t read thermometers). He does not address ocean acidification. Is this all because he is rather narrowly focused to atmospheric temperature readings? 

But I am always curious so I looked him up. Well, let’s see… John Christy “is a climate scientist whose chief interests are global climate change, satellite sensing of global climate, and paleoclimate.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy) It continues: “…Christy was a missionary in Kenya for two years. After earning his divinity degree he founded a Southern Baptist church in South Dakota before pursuing a career in science and teaching. He received his Ph.D. in Atmospheric sciences from the University of Illinois. He also has a master's degree in divinity from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.” That means he’s been a missionary, Baptist preacher, AND a climate scientist - an interesting combination. The article also says: “Christy is generally considered a contrarian on some issues related to global warming, although he helped draft and signed the American Geophysical Union statement on climate change.” And then: “While he supports the AGU declaration and is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured, Christy is ‘still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.’” He doesn’t quantify the terms “huge” and “catastrophic.” He has also said, "I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist - and there are many - that simply think that is not true." Once again, he does not quantify the term “catastrophic” or “many.” “Many” is a number significantly less than half, or the peer review process would include more evidence of dissent. The best I can get from this is that this one scientist, while he signed a paper that said that global warming is real and that a significant cause was human activity, doesn’t believe global warming will cause “catastrophic change to the climate system.” This is less than comforting, in my opinion. I agree, politics leaks into these scientific discussions “for at least a few” of these scientists. They are only human. That’s why there is peer review, which you state is skewed because you personally don’t like the data. Judging by his rather high public profile, John Christy is definitely one of these “few” scientists who gets involved with the politics! At this point, John Christy sounds to me like one dissenting voice that you cherry-picked from the many other, less political scientists whose opinions you have already flatly stated that you disagree with.

Charles,
I agree with almost all that you are saying here except for one thing - if we are going to harness methane from animals, I think we need to MAKE SURE it works for the animals, not just for the humans. So far, humans are failing miserably here. Methane from animal waste is one matter, but cows tend to be flatulent! At the moment, the vision in mind of how this might work can't even be presented in polite company, and I feel certain that the cows would object, so I would say the devil is definitely in the details on this one. 
I do greatly appreciate the positive attitude!

Ok, wait a minute.  I said...

"Also I agree in that process we must make sure the animals are treated humanely.  Currently how we do it is more like a petry dish for bacteria and viruses to grow!"

As of yet it looks more like no one is even trying to be humane to the animals.  I think the design intent should be to humanely treat the animals.  In doing so most if not all of the adverse effects should be eliminated.  It would make the food safer and healthier for us.

I do not understand how all of these inhumane, unhealthy, unsafe shortcuts are OK.  Do we not have people to monitor these things?  Oh well that is an entirely seperate issue that should be addressed as well.;)

And thank you for your compliment on my positive attitude!  I am trying to be helpful and spread a positive attitude.  Thanks for doing the same!