Craig, I think it's a mistake to call anyone who challenges human global warming a denier.  I like to think of myself as a "questioner", but you would then label me as a denier?  Funny how that happens. The science is complex and confusing.  Choosing different time frames and different types of measurement provides different answers.  It appears that scientific method, which we all learnt at school, has gone out the window.   We have the right to question.  Moreover I question the "panic stations to Copenhagen"  thinking that's going on.  The reason for the panic, is this questioning that's going on.  Suddenly answers aren't so clear, dubious theories are getting exposed and the person in the street is saying - Hold on a minute I'm not so sure.  I've been around a long time as well.  What is wrong with sites dedicated to denying GW.  They simply balance the arguments, from the protagonists.  The current global warming rhetoric is starting to sound like the new McCarthyism. 

Roger,

Global climate change (GCC), to a climate scientist, is established science, just like evolution is established science to a biologist. Those that deny the science of evolution are not doing it for scientific reasons, they are doing it for religious reasons, and religion is not science! That is called a denial, because the science of evolution, to a scientist, is established. With GCC, the idea that CO2 could function as a greenhouse gas was first put forward as a concept almost as long ago as evolution was; the amount of warming our planet has experienced to date was quite accurately predicted in the 1930's (please watch:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

This video is worth the hour it takes to watch.)

Although the details of evolution are very complicated, the basic idea can be easily explained in ten minutes. The fact that the details are complicated does not mean that evolution is false. The same is true of GCC. The basic idea is not that complicated, but the details are complex.

By denying the basic science and the details of GCC, the big energy corporations are trying to keep people like you confused - "Hold on a minute I'm not so sure." It appears that their hundreds of millions of dollars have been well spent.

Why would Big Dirty Energy invest in such a lie? Because of money. They have hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of man hours tied up in treaties negotiated, deals made, transportation routes established, bribes paid, etc., all to make huge profits on selling carbon-based fuels. They have a lot to loose. So for years they have support the creation and dissemination of bogus science to make it look as though there is major disagreement among scientists about GCC when, in actuality, there is none. According to a recent survey, over 98% of climate scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed articles agree with the statement that GCC is happening now, and that human activity is largely responsible.

McCarthyism is politics. GCC is science. The GCC deniers are doing exactly what you are doing - they are mixing politics with science. This is why Galileo was silenced. This is why Copernicus was called a heretic. (Did you know that the ancient Greeks knew the exact diameter of the earth down to a few miles?) This is why the Big Bang theory was challenged when it was first proposed. This is why Darwin is, to this day, so vilified. These scientific ideas all challenged the power establishments of their day. GCC challenges the power establishments of today.

In the case of GCC, the stakes of not taking action are high, and the time window in which to act has become very small. The best science tells us that if we don't act soon, we will see human suffering on a scale that the earth has never yet seen. This may cause some to panic, but panic is a choice. I say don't panic, but it is time to do something. If we don't, I doubt that our children will remember us kindly.  

Craig,  I will admit to not being a climate scientist, just a person of a scientific bent and I like to question authority.  Just as I questioned the domino theory, I will question what politicians, and media cook up for me.   I will not accept the term “denier” as I am simply a “questioner”. You have proved one of my key points on the new McCarthyism. If I dare to question; I am deemed to be the enemy – a heretic to be vilified.  It’s pointless to quote Galileo, Copernicus and Darwin, as their examples can be used on both sides of this argument. They would actually represent the dissenters against the 98% of scientists who agree.  You are quite wrong to think that AGW is simply science.  The pro-AGW lobby is the most politicized issue for many years.  The protagonists are driving it with religious fervor, especially in the weeks leading up to Copenhagen. 

Climate change may be accepted science, but due to the lack of formal scientific process, it doesn’t have a final conclusion.  Lobbyists hijacked it, before the conclusion was reached.  Understanding CC takes broader view of the world than a single discipline like climatology.  Throw is astrophysics, paleontology, volcanology, geology, chemistry, biology, archeology and you start getting the picture.

I will have some respect for your opinion if you can answer the following questions accurately.  These are just a handful of some of the “basic principles” questions I keep asking.  When I ask, I get no answers, just vilification.

1)    What is the warmest period in the last 10,000 years, and the second warmest.  How warm was it and when did it happen?

2)    What caused these warming periods, and why did they reverse?

3)    What was the average temperature 15,000 years ago?  What made the temperature change after that?

4)    What is the amount temperature variation over the last 400,000 years?  Why does this variation happen?  Where are we now in that cycle?  What is the reason for the very sudden cooling at the end of the warm periods?

5)    What is the effect of the planet warming by 2 degrees?  What if it cooled by 2 degrees? What's preferable?

6)    Due to ice melt, the norwest passage has opened up for the first time.  Is that true or has this happened before?  If so – why?

As for the corporations.  Do not trust them!  What do you think the energy companies, the banks and Wall Street will do with this new tradable commodity?  Copenhagen is blindly rushing towards the next era of trading and banking corruption - this time it will be carbon credits not mortgages.  Yes I can already see the new CDO - Carbonised Debt Obligations :-)

Your first paragraph completely ignores science. You talk of politics - McCarthyism. I'm talking about science.

About McCarthyism (from Wikipedia):

McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.

NO ONE is calling anyone here disloyal, subversive, or treasonous. No one is threatening to take your job away for these reasons (which are all political, and which McCarthy did). There is simply little parallel to be found between McCarthyism and the current debate about GCC. GCC is primarily a scientific debate, or should be. Are you using this reference to McCarthyism for the emotional baggage it raises? Please, I've had enough of that!

About the science: climate scientists are in very good consensus about global climate change (GCC). Question it all you want, but ask your questions of the scientists who know, and then trust the scientific process. Galileo, Copernicus and Darwin were all pretty quickly accepted by the good scientists around them who evaluated their work. It was mostly the politicians who resisted accepting their discoveries because these discoveries threatened their power.

GCC has already been through the formal scientific process, which is called peer review, and that process worked great (except for people who deny the process, or deny the evaluations of the evidence, of course). There are never any "final conclusions" in this kind of science. The preponderance of the evidence has already been accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists. There are always details to be worked out, by the basic outline is clear. Climatologists have already consulted other branches of science - it's built into the process. GCC is real and is largely cause by humans. And the results are in all probability not going to be pleasant for life on earth.

I'm not going to get into the details of the various temperature cycles that are present in the data. You can look that up yourself. It is easy to find. I'm also not fishing for your respect for my opinion - I will leave that to the judgement of our audience (whoever that may be). But the end result is this - when all recent temperature cycles have been accounted for (back at least 450,000 years), the recent rise in global temperatures are not a part of any of them, and can only be explained by anthropogenic GCC.

You could get all this from Al Gore's movie.

The way the world addresses GCC, of course, is entirely political. It MUST involve banks, big energy corporations, etc. I just want these entities to be following the will of the people of planet earth, and not their own bottom line. In this particular case, due to the nature of GCC, I think it important that the will of the people be primarily informed by good science.

This may or may not happen, and you are a part of it. If humanity fails to act soon and with enough change to make a difference, you and I will probably live long enough to see which scientific predictions turn out to be true. In that future, depending on who you support and how quickly you do it, you may find yourself with reason to regret your choices.

Craig, I'm afraid you're starting to contradict yourself.  My position is simple.  I don't believe the full peer review process has been completed.  You say it has "except for people who deny the process, or deny the evaluations of the evidence, of course" and that's my point.  Over 32,000 scientist including 9,000 PHd's have signed at petition.org.  That shows a flaw in the scientific peer review process, because your saying it's all agreed, but not by everyone.   Why do you quote Al Gore?  he's a politician and not a scientist.  Some of the films key findings have been discredited.  In particular the "Hockey Stick".  This is discussed here: http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543 I'm not saying that Demming is right or wrong, just that this is an example of scientific process going wrong, being deliderately distorted and getting hijacked by media, politicians and lobbyists.  The very fact that Michael mann and his team 'deleted" the medieval warm period from their analysis, to prove a point, should be enough for us to all to get very, very concerned about the IPCC, and Al Gore.  Don't we simply deserve the truth?  The truth is, we don't really have the complete answers, and we're racing towards a potentially dangerous political conclusion, based on this incomplete analysis.  I asked those questions simply to show that no AGW protagonist wants to answer them.  They are highly inconvenient questions. I do suggest you try to answer them in this forum.  Six short questions.  Six short answers.  the answer is allowed to be "I don't know" - give it a go.

Roger here is some data you asked for in your comment:t

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature

According to the data,

65 miillion years ago "it was much warmer than today. Oxygen isotope ratios show the ocean was 10° to 15° Celsius warmer than today. For Americans who know nothing of metric units, that's 18°-27° Fahrenheit warmer than now"

Before GCC activists start accusations, this isn't a climate change denial. However since carbon dioxide levels weren't high back then the high temperature certainly wasn't due to CO2.

Roger,

It appears to me that you do not understand the scientific process or peer-review as a way of generating consensus.

In science (particularly when it relates to past our future events), it is virtually impossible to prove anything in the affirmative. What is done is possibilities are hypothesized and then eliminated through the collection of data, experimentation, and logical deduction. The peer-review process is an objective way to evaluate that data. This process is on going – it is never completed. It continues even after a consensus is reached to more accurately explain the observable phenomena. This is the case with evolution. It is also the case with global climate change (GCC). A recent survey shows that a scientific consensus has been reached among actively publishing climatologists – 97% agree that GCC is real, that it is happening now, and that human activity is largely responsible:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

I could not find the petition you were talking about at petition.org. Regardless, a petition is not a scientific measurement. It is a political one. A survey is a scientific measurement.

I did not quote Al Gore. But if you had seen his movie, you would recognize this quote: “I am a recovering politician.” He is not a scientist – he is reporting the science. Most fact-checking organizations give him high points for accuracy. It will do no good to shoot the messenger, because that will have no bearing on the validity of the message.

David Deming is not a climatologist. He is a geophysicist who has worked for the oil industry. He has led a colorful and controversial life. You can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming

He is what I consider a GCC denier, and not a very credible one at that.

One must carefully evaluate Internet information. The discussion about the medieval warm period (MWP) is an example of this. Most climatologists believe it was a local phenomenon. You can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Even if it were not, the existence of the MWP does not disprove GCC.

I believe that the truth is right before you, but it appears to me that you are denying it, like many others. Why?

Your “six short questions” would require long answers to be complete. They would take time to type, and you would probably disagree with my response anyway. State your case and I will respond.

There are also a number of questions that I have asked you to which you have not responded. 

Hello, Konstantin!

What do you mean when you say that CO2 levels were much lower? In the early Eocene (slightly less than 65 million years ago), when the temperatures and ocean levels were MUCH higher, the CO2 levels were also MUCH higher:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060928-hot-earth.html

Craig,

Didn't know that. Sorry I was watching Al Gore's movie again earlier and I thought I heard him say CO2 is at the highest today than it has ever been.

Will look into it further.

Robert,

Here's an interesting article that you might want to read:

http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/is-climate-change-a-communist-plot/#comment-253472

I'm not lying. And polar bear numbers HAVEN'T tripled. Polar bear numbers are decreasing:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN18294663

The early polar bear estimates were very inaccurate. The only people who insist that polar bear numbers have tripled are the ones that have based the increase on early (and discredited) estimates which were themselves based on sheer guesses. (Those people are all GCC deniers, because polar bears are an attractive species and have already gotten many people interested in stopping GCC.) Once hunting was restricted, polar bear populations appear to have rebounded somewhat, but increasing global climate change (GCC) has caused their numbers to drop again, particularly in the new century. Of course, if you don't "believe" in GCC...

About the Chinese: they may not be signing anything, but they know that GCC is going to hurt them, and they know that clean energy is the way of the future. If you think that they aren't moving just as fast as they can toward the new green energy economy, then think again. The Chinese authoritarian government/economy isn't slowed down by a bunch of GCC deniers, like the US government and economy currently are. If they get green technology developed before we do (with cheaper, longer lasting batteries, for instance), economically we are going to be eating their dust. I don't think that is a good thing.

The big energy corporations are the ones that "think the common people are idiots," not the "left," as you so partisanly put it (hey, isn't there a "right" blog you should be hanging out at?). After all, GCC is going to affect Republicans and Democrats equally.

I'm a teacher, and I got news for you - by my personal observations, Americans are NOT better informed than they were 20 years ago. Some are, but the majority are not. This could be due to our struggling education system, particularly our high schools.

"Posers?" I'll bet I was writing letters on environmental issues to my elected officials before you were a twinkle in your daddy's eye.

I have no idea whom you are quoting in your post. If you are going to call someone a liar and expect anyone to believe you, you are going to have to back up your statements a little better, and stop making so many assumptions.

Craig, I do not think anyone is calling you in particular a liar. I have been dealing with the left for many years and I have seen the snobbish attitude torwards the masses many times. (such as your above reference) As someone Who is in the middle I read the material from both sides. Sorry, yes it is the left that wants to run peoples' lives, not the right. I happen to believe we need strict environmental protection, and that is why I caution enviromentalists, stop telling half truths, admit you do not know it all and people will listen more intently to what you have to say. As far as the Chinese, Their rivers are sewers, Their streets are dumps, Their air is poison, and Their citizens are prisoners. My heart cries for these people, I pray some day They find what we may soon lose.

You are lumping people together and insulting them all, but then saying that you are not insulting anyone individually. That's a hair that I feel is pointless to split.

It is precisely because China has so degraded their environment that they are going to act rapidly on global climate change (GCC) - their population is beginning to demand it. And the fact that, as you put it, not I, "their citizens are prisoners" also means that their government can act rapidly if it needs to. And they have plenty of money to put into new research and manufacturing - our money. 

It's a little too early to feel too sorry for China, in my opinion. China can take care of itself. I would worry more about America.

I been around a long time also. But not very good with words. The whole solar system has a lot of variables, each item has its opposite, where looking at the world us humans are a very small part of the total world. The one thing that has my attention is cosmic rays. and the magnetic fields that deflect them from earth. Google the words?  lot of people are studying them with a connection to our weather systems. I work in the electronic field and understand feedback and control systems. The fact that solar magnetic fields are decreasing allowing more rays entering our atmosphere which makes more clouds and which reflex our solar heat and etc..

 I also believe we should be wise on how we use our own energy sources. A little off subject, look at this link http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.314f8f63df41800c448cd89e0a88dd31.331 is about small nuclear power systems maybe that's the solution?

I do agree with you the polar bears are very safe and increasing in numbers, the bears were never far form the shore behind the camera.

If we are cooling (like the little ice age) then this world is going to be in a bigger problem. Like I said, not very good with words do better with a soldering iron in one hand and a scope in the other. Now retired and broke!

One more thing is this link to CERN

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html

CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation

CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is one of the world’s largest and most respected centres for scientific research

Dan, 

Your first paragraph begins with an ad-homonym attack that I will ignore. I have provided you with ample evidence as to what the facts are telling us. Have you looked at that evidence? Here it is again:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

Anyone who is interested in global climate change (GCC) should watch this excellent video. Do YOU see the connection?

Proof, in the everyday sense of it, is not how science works. With complicated issues like GCC (or evolution, or the origin of the universe, etc.), it is the preponderance of the evidence. Since that evidence is large in volume and sometimes rather technical, it is easy for those who are not familiar with science and the peer-review process to fail to appreciate the evidence, or the conclusions that logically arise from that evidence.

I asked you a number of questions that you have not specifically addressed. If GCC is not happening, then why have many bird populations shifted to the north in the past thirty years, some by hundreds of miles? Why has the amount of warming of the planet followed the basic predictions made in the 1930's about the greenhouse effect of rising atmospheric CO2 levels on the earth's average temperature? Why has the rise in CO2 levels from the industrial revolution so closely paralleled the rise in the earth's temperature? Why do over 98% of climate scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed articles agree that GCC is real, is happening now, and is largely due to human activity?

From Wikipedia:

Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "region, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time,[1] and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences.

So where did you get the idea that a climatologist is not a scientist? And why would anyone be a climatologist if "the Earth is too complex to fully understand"? It appears to me that you would have us ignore science. Is that true?

I would argue that Mitchell Taylor is not currently looked upon by all in the scientific community as "the reigning expert on polar bears." He is, however, without doubt an outspoken GCC denier. Of course he believes polar bears are not threatened - it flies in the face of his GCC denials. He is so biased in his views on GCC that he was uninvited to the Polar Bear Specialists Group (PBSG) in 2009. This was in the letter informing him of this decision:

"Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change. I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG."

Most Americans DO NOT remain skeptical of GCC. As a matter of fact, in a recent poll, over half of Americans think that GCC is happening, it is happening now, that human activity (specifically the release of CO2) is responsible, and that we should do something about it. That number is much higher in many other countries.

I repeat: the science on GCC appears unsettled because the big energy corporations have, for over the past twenty or more years, spent hundreds of millions of dollars to support bogus science to confuse the issue. This is a fact. Once again, view the evidence here:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

Let the facts speak for themselves. But make sure they are indeed facts.

 Al Gore's "hockey stick", is not the result of global warming, but it is the result of "cap and trade" not to the climate but to his bank account.

a couple of good links

http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/obfuscating-global-warming-and-the-cap-and-trade-bill/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Lets not give too much credit to us humans, in thinking we can change the earth, up or down!

No need to respond to this? As I have drop this link

I assume you mean heat transfered to water in the rivers near the nuclear power plants, since the heat doesn't contribute to the actual "global warming heat". We talked about the heat before. I heard it doesn't harm the wildlife in the rivers but you said it does. We didn't find documetation either for or against it.

The standard of living is an economic phenomena that's also related to energy.

What's wrong with living with reducewd energy is that it takes extra energy to recycle and get rid of the waste products society creates. More energy will be needed in addition to the energy used to make recycling possible. Solar and wind can't provide enough energy especially with a growing world population. Nuclear can.

By reprocessing nuclear waste there would be no E waste. Only we don't do it.

All other countries do and even Iran?http://epaper.tfponline.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=ChatTFPress/2007/08/24&ID=Ar00104&Locale=

 We even convert Russan A bombs to fuel there reactors

I think I have an analogy for the standard of living point. You know how some people live "paycheck to paycheck"? They have to spend all their money on their expenses and they have nothing left to save up for emergencies or to improve their standard of living by investing-in/buying things or have any extra money if they want to start a family.

That's what living at the minimum energy levels is like. Society will come to a standstill, poverty will increase, no advances will be made, etc.

Konstantin,

The heat transfer from coolant water to the environment that occurs with all forms of nuclear energy is a known pollutant, but at the moment, not a terribly significant one, unless you live close to a nuclear power plant. Because of the high specific heat of water, aquatic environments in general do not vary as much in temperature as terrestrial environments do. Most aquatic animals are not adapted to rapid or extended temperature changes. Dumping hot water into lakes and streams greatly alters those environments - it's actually called thermal pollution. Here are some examples:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/061012_stressed_oysters.html

http://www.ctriver.org/programs/advocacy/thermal_pollution/index.html

I find that the standard of living is a very hard value to quantify. When I moved from New York City to a small town in Louisiana, I had few possessions, but I did have a grand piano, some ratty but appealingly rustic wicker furniture, a small but interesting collection of art, some unusual potted plants, a great cat and an irresistible ferret. (At least it all looked like it belonged together!) We had been in town a few weeks when a neighborhood girl of about ten visited our house. I let her play with the cat and the ferret, which were good friends. She then went home to a far better house than mine, with many more (and more expensive) possessions, and promptly told her dad that she had just visited the rich people that just moved in down the street! Standard of living is indeed a hard thing to quantify, and it's not always economic.

Recycling SAVES energy. Some recycling, such as aluminum recycling, saves LOTS of energy. If recycling doesn't save energy, then it doesn't save money, so it's not really recycling. But we could also create less waste, or make our waste easier to recycle. We could make easy recycling one of our goals. What a concept!

Does anyone really think that an ever-increasing human population will ever be sustainable? Will we ever quit passing these ever-increasing problems on to our children? 

I have lived much of my life paycheck to paycheck. I did so because I was investing time into my education. That investment has paid off, and it's been a pretty great life. There can be a certain wisdom in insecurity.

The rain forest and the coral reef environments all exist at minimum energy levels, with total sustainability, maximum efficiency, and incredible diversity. Maybe this is a better model. And I do not believe that any human society that is not living by trying to compete with a larger, wealthier, more power-hungry and infinitely more wasteful society would ever "come to a standstill," or suffer with the ills that you outline. After all, our current American standard of living is not sustainable for everyone now on the earth to live by. We either need to find a way to change or be ready to eventually protect our wealth from all of those who have less. This is why all the less wealthy countries are waiting for America to act first on GCC - right or wrong, they want to see if we are going to acknowledge the disparity and take responsible action before the commit to having less. This has now become a big game of global chicken, with the fate of the earth's climate in the balance.

Seems recycling save the energy that would be used in extracting the materials from the earth.

On the subject of limiting people's "right to energy access",

if you limit people's energy besides being undemocratic you wouldn't have innovative inventions like flying cars which need energy http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/10/impossible-drive-designers-dream-flying-cars-stealth-missiles

Konstantin,

The article you posted refers to the Emdrive. This is highly controversial because the inventor has yet to submit any of his research that backs up his claims to peer-review. This means we just have to take his word for it. Until he backs it up with real science, I would have to call it speculative at best.

I find it ironic that in one conversation, anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) is being attacked as not being peer-reviewed enough, and in another conversation, an argument is being made against taking strong action against AGCC supported by an idea that has never been peer-reviewed.

I have said nothing about limiting any ones "right to energy access." But now that you mentioned it, what kind of "right" is that? Is that like the "right" to get rich? Or is that more like the "right" to clean air, or clean water, or the "right" to be free from excessive pollution that makes our lives more hazardous? Is it akin to the "right" of Polynesian nations to have a country at all?

If any action is going to be taken in America to help stop AGCC (and that is a real big IF), it will be action taken through our democratic process, so I don't understand your concern - unless, of course, you don't agree with the science that says we need to take action. 

I believe that individuals have the right to free association and transactions among people as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

The problem I have with this wave of green technology and green mania is that the numbers and science behind many of these companies that say they support "green", whatever that means, don't add up.

They are being deceptive and ripping-off people  and the taxpayers.

They are taking advantage of people cause they know most people don't know much of the science or economics of green technology. Same thing will happen with Cap 'n Trade.

They'll deny energy to the poor and middle class while the rich will be able to afford all the energy they want. And if people are denied access to high density energy then that means condemning the poor and middle class to perpetual poverty.

Here is just one of the sites that exposes the deceptive claims of many green companies and technologies:

The Capacity Factor

http://uvdiv.blogspot.com

About the EMDrive, there is a video of one of the demonstration engines on their site

http://emdrive.com/DMtest188.avi

They posted the theory and some papers on their site which I haven't read yet. From their FAQ, it seems the effect only requires a knowledge of Einstein's special theory of relativity which only requires algebra.

http://emdrive.com

I also don't think there's anything wrong with being rich either. However many of the mega-corporations got rich by bribing corrupt politicians. There wouldn't be all the problems we have toady if it weren't for politicians giving special privileges to these corporations.

Konstantin,

I agree completely with your first statement.

The web site you provided the link to is a pro-nuclear power web site, and from that angle, it seems rather biased to me. It is too much to go into here to critique. Suffice it to say that he is trying so hard to prove a point (some of which I agree with) that he is misrepresenting some of his information.

The concept of "green" was not thought up by environmentalists. It was coined by the people who want to take advantage of the environmental movement to make money. I have watched it from the early 1970's, and the anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) group has always been science driven. People will try to make money off of it, because people will try to make money off of anything. But that doesn't in any way change the science.

Energy is ALREADY denied to the poor. Adding AGCC on top of that, which will affect the poor far more than it will affect the rich will make matters worse FOR THE POOR.

Cap and Trade is a method to level the economic playing field by making the price of carbon-derived energy reflect the true cost of the damage it does to the environment. If it is done right, all the money made by the government from Cap and Trade would go to clean energy research and subsidies to the poor to help pay the rise in energy costs. It is unlikely to work out that way. (I have written my Congressman and both my Senators about that. Have you?) But make no mistake, science tells us that the poor in the world are ALREADY suffering from AGCC, and it's going to get much worse if we don't do something big and do it soon.

About the Emdrive, from Wikipedia (under Criticism):

"The EmDrive was the cover story for the 8 September 2006 issue of New Scientist.[1] After receiving criticism that no peer-reviewed publications on the subject had been made, Mr. Shawyer submitted a theory paper to New Scientist (which is not a peer reviewed scientific journal) [6] Shawyer's paper was almost immediately challenged[4] by Dr. John Costella, a theoretical physicist and electrical engineer who works for the Australian Department of Defence, whose Ph.D. is in relativistic electrodynamics, the field of physics that Mr. Shawyer relies on to support his theory."

I had already reviewed all the web sites you have listed for the Emdrive - I find it a rather entertaining debate.

I also agree for the most part with your statement in your second post.

Roger,

Here are my responses to your statements:

1)  The major climate cycles (the ones that could explain really significant warming and cooling periods) are all longer than 10,000 years. Ice core samples from the Antarctic go back 450,000 years.  We also have tree ring data (including fossil tree-ring data), deep-ocean sediment cores, and paleobotanical data, to name just a few other sources of prehistoric temperature data. When these are added together, we can get a better-than-clouded view of global temperature data. Recent rising global temperatures indicate a much larger temperature increase than any variation within the past 10,000 years, and therefore is not believed to be a part of any 10,000 year cycle.

2)  These short term cycles, because they change the global climate in relatively small amounts, aren’t significant to this debate. You are also misusing the term “theory” in the same way that creationist do to attack evolution. In science, a theory is an explanation for observed phenomena. It is not an unproven hypothesis, as the word is sometimes defined in common usage, and in the way that you are using it. Global climate change (GCC) is a theory in the scientific sense. It is now the accepted theory among 97% of active climatologists to explain recent significant global temperature increases (anthropogenic GCC theory says, by the way, that humans are the principle cause of GCC, not “100% human,” as you incorrectly stated). Those who disagree with the generally accepted theory of GCC established by climatologists are denying science, in my opinion (just like those who would disavow evolution, or the Big Bang theory, or the “theory” of gravity are denying science), thus the name “denier.” They are denying established science, by the standard definition of the terms “established” and “science.”

The Milankovitch cycles are pretty well established, and are based on well-known long-term cycles in the earth’s orbit. According to this scientific theory, we are in a cooling cycle. So why would the earth be warming? Prehistoric global temperature increases have preceded atmospheric CO2 increases because these temperature increases have not been caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2. They have most recently been caused primarily by variation in the earth’s distance from the sun and the changing angle of the earth’s axis with respect to the ecliptic. And increases in atmospheric CO2 have followed this NOT because the oceans released it, but because thawing permafrost has released it. The oceans absorb CO2, not release it. We are now heading into a cooling Milankovitch cycle, but increases in global temperatures that closely follow the recent increases in the burning of fossil fuels by humans have called for a new explanation, thus the development over the past fifty years of the generally accepted scientific theory of anthropogenic GCC.

Contrary to what you have stated, global temperatures are increasing.

The warming predicted by the most conservative estimates of unstopped anthropogenic GCC are far more than your rosy 2ºC. You are definitely not going to like living on an earth that is as warm as it’s likely to become if we do not do something soon about anthropogenic GCC.

By the way, when was the Northwest passage navigated in medieval times?

Greenland has been covered by an ice sheet, in part, for at least 100,000 years. We know this from ice cores. Although there have been variations in Greenland’s climate, there has been an ice sheet on some part of Greenland throughout historic times. Today, around 80% of Greenland is covered by ice. The parts of Greenland that might have been “green” in historic times were areas in the south (during the MWP), many of which are still green today. Greenland was probably so named by Erik the Red to encourage people to settle there – the original Inuit inhabitants never referred to it as Greenland!

You need to research your information better. It is at best inaccurate.

I will quote you “Prehistoric global temperature increases have preceded atmospheric CO2 increases because these temperature increases have not been caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2. They have most recently been caused primarily by variation in the earth’s distance from the sun and the changing angle of the earth’s axis with respect to the ecliptic.”  And say “exactly?”   If greenhouses gases have never been a factor before, why now?  Permafrost melt does create large amounts of carbon gas.  And permafrost has retreated from as far south as Missouri and central France.  Surely it was a factor.  The oceans ability to store CO2 is reduced by warming, an inconvenient truth, in the discussion of global warming and coral. 

See the following graphic:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

We are in a cooling phase with a pattern of smaller cycles, superimposed on the trend line.  A warming cycle started 200 years ago.   Current proxies include intensive examination of satellite data, but only available for the last 30 years, and this is the data climate scientists use the most.  It’s an apples vs oranges analysis, and I think people have every right to question a number of issues with this type of data matching.

We have only got legend and logic to determine what happened in the Arctic, and norwest passage, during the MWP.  Somewhat different to the daily satellite images we get now.  It is a consensus that it was navigated in the period around 1,000 AD, plus it makes sense as we did have a warm climate in that period.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage But your skepticism is understandable. We didn’t have satellites; weather stations back then, so nothing is proven.  As Al Gore would do – just get rid of it. 

Vikings once inhabited Greenland, even if only scantily and for a short while. They farmed and they traded; after a few centuries they left, or died.  Temperature record for Greenland is here and may have something to do with is – who knows:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grtemp.png

I admit to not having the best quality reference material, or the time to research adequately.  Obviously you do; but your surety does nothing to ease my deep unease, that we are racing towards an internationally taxation treaty and commodity trading system, based on arbitrary reduction standards, based on possibly flawed mathematical models, based on sometimes questionable data, and driven by a multi-billion dollar campaign to "just get it signed.” 

If it is accepted science, is it the same book of accepted science as Creativism, Flat-earthism, pre-Einstienian physics, and pre-Copernicus astronomy?  These were all, also accepted science.

I think we'll just keep on differring, so I'll bow out of this thread.  Based on my learnings, I'm going to be busy buying Carbon Futures, and investing in Florida real estate.

Greenhouses gases HAVE been a factor in a warming earth before, but in the distant past where we don’t have as good data about the relationship between the CO2 curve and the temperature curve (our really good data only goes back about 450,000 years). My statement was only meant to apply back 450,000 years. Before that, we do know that when the temperature was high, CO2 was high, and we have evidence that increases in CO2 caused the planet's temperature to rise. As a matter of fact, the earth’s atmosphere originally had much, much more CO2 in it than it does now, and the earth’s temperature was much, much hotter. What happened? Over a period of many millions of years, the ocean slowly absorbed the CO2, where it was used by early life to make skeletons of calcium carbonate and related molecules. This calcium carbonate is now found in huge deposits of limestone around the world. Early life created a breathable atmosphere, and we now build buildings and roads with this sequestered CO2 (and in the process, release some of it BACK into the atmosphere). If tiny, primal creatures can change the atmosphere, then why couldn't human activity?

So the oceans, even when warm, absorb CO2. Why do you think that ocean acidity is now rising, and we are beginning to see a large die-off of coral? Read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

On the page that links to the Holocene graph, it says as a caption to that graph:

“Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on left. Note that the recent warming is too rapid to model on the graph.”

The thick, dark line on the graph is also the average of eight sets of data, so your comment about “apples to oranges” is not accurate. Our level of resolution is better with the recent data, but it is all temperature data. Science compiles data in this way all the time, particularly when graphing change over geological time scales, because the data must be collated from different sources.

Where do you get this “consensus” thing about the Northwest Passage?! The article you link to I have already read in its entirety, and here is what it says:

“Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906.”

I don’t trust your concept of “consensus,” and neither should you. Look it up, and read it! Al Gore did, and so should you. This is exactly how the big, dirt energy corporations have railroaded this debate, by passing around bad information, and hoping that nobody looks it up, or reads the fine print. By doing what these corporations expect, you are becoming a shill for the big, dirt energy corporations!

By the definition of science, creationism (I think that is what you meant) and “flat-earthism” are not science! The Greeks knew that the earth was not flat, the northern Europeans just didn't look it up (for various political reasons). Besides, we need to make our decisions with the best information we have, and that information is all saying DO SOMETHING NOW!

Carbon futures might be a good idea, depending on how they do it, but why on earth would you buy land in Florida?

Craig,

You wonder why I would want to invest in Florida real estate?  It’s pure logic; and based on your advice.   You agree that we are in a cooling phase as per Milankovich.  You believe that humans are primarily responsible for GCC.   You state that the Oceans act as CO2 sinks.  You state that temperature is determined by CO2 concentration.  So; successful reduction of CO2 will result in:  1) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations will stabilise 2) The oceans and forests will sequester CO2 from the atmosphere and concentrations will drop.  3) The earth will continue on its’ cooling cycle.  Then we’ll have a rapid drop in temperature ( 5 – 10C) at some point in the near future..  

If hell does start freezing over, I don’t want to be anywhere near New York or Toronto;  hence Florida.

I have often pondered the geo-political point effect of warming or cooling.   Warming will affect populous poor areas, like Africa, India, SE Asia.  Although the effect would be significant, their military, commercial and political power is not great.  They are not in any position to invade northern neighbours to get access to fertile land.  Cooling will affect the populous rich regions of North America and Europe.   They have great military, commercial and political power.  If Germany, Northern USA, China, Japan, Korea and Russia become significantly cooler, there is every possibility that these countries will return to their colonial ways of old.  Where do you put all the dispossessed citizens of Moscow, when the city freezes up? 

Roger,

You are intentional misconstruing my statements, but I'm sure you knew that. Your post reminds me of a great bumper sticker I saw once – “Better Living Through Sarcasm.” As you well know, AGCC is overwhelming any cooling provided by the Milancovitch cycle. But I really don’t mind if you loose your money on a Florida real estate deal – you might learn something in the process.

Hot (the scientific prediction) or cold (your fantasy), people are going to suffer. Doesn’t that bother you a wee bit?

Dan,

The Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) to which Mitchell Taylor was uninvited was the special committee on polar bears of the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) that was set up to make recommendations to CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), which in turn was set up by an international treaty trying to protect endangered species by limiting international trade in these species. Of course, none of the scientific research necessary to make these decisions was funded in the treaty. The scientists of the PBSG meet periodically, at their own expense, to try to make the best recommendations to CITES to attempt to protect polar bears from extinction. These people make no money from this endeavor – they are scientists who are meeting on their own time because they do not want to see polar bears become extinct. So when Mitchell Taylor wants to be attend this committee, the same Mitchell Taylor who is making a public name (and the money that comes with such publicity) for himself in a political arena denying what the rest of the committee believes is established science (anthropogenic global climate change (GCC)), and in the process wasting their time and their money and NOT protecting polar bears, well, who wants to be a part of that? It has nothing to do with fear – that is merely your own assumption. It is more like disgust.

I never said there was a public (political) consensus, just a scientific one. But there is a public majority that would like to see the problem of anthropogenic global climate change (GCC) addressed, and, in our democracy, a majority is enough to generate action.

The video link is the delivery of a published scholarly paper. In such a paper, all statements of fact must be documented (footnoted with references). This information is publicly available in the published paper. As such, it is also subject to public scrutiny. So far, there has not been a scholarly rebuttal, just the expected political push-back. She did not quote Arnold Schwartzenegger or Frank Luntz as experts in fields outside of their area of expertise – one as the Governor of California, and one as a Republican consultant and pollster whose job is, “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.” Climatologists are the scientists whose specialty is the study of climate. Would you consult a proctologist for a skin problem?

The movement of bird populations to the north in the northern hemisphere is clear and indisputable evidence that global temperatures are rising. You are wrong about the southern edge remaining the same. In some cases, these birds have all but disappeared from areas where they were once common. And if you actually look at the temperature and CO2 graphs, it is hard to make a coherent argument against the fact that the temperature, this time around, appears to be following CO2 levels.

Some of the infrared radiation absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is re-radiated back out into space as infrared radiation. But any of that energy that is changed to heat (from infrared radiation going in either direction) by increasing the motion of the molecules is passed on mechanically through molecular collisions to other molecules in the atmosphere (since there are no molecules in space to absorb this heat). The actual heat produced from infrared radiation received from any direction is retained in the atmosphere. I have not found this argument against the magnitude of the greenhouse effect supported by what I would consider a credible scientific source. Once again, it appears that you (or someone you believe) are trying to make the problem appear less well understood than it actually is.

I have not said that anyone who disagrees with anthropogenic GCC is “in the pocket of the big corporations.” The big energy corporations, for financial reasons, want to stall any actions taken against anthropogenic GCC for as long as they can. Many of these same corporations are rapidly investing in clean energy behind the scenes. It’s just that they aren’t yet in a good position to shift their resources, and they don’t want any smaller, more nimble corporations to get there ahead of them. Essentially, they do not want a level playing field. They also are dead set against ANY KIND of governmental regulation – they always have been. It simply cuts into their profits. So these corporations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to try to keep the public confused about this issue so serious action will be put off for as long as possible. It is the exact same tactic that tobacco companies used to resist any kind of regulation of nicotine, and many thousands of people died in the interim.

I wouldn’t say you were “in the pocket of the big corporations.” I would say that you have been duped by the big energy corporation’s very sophisticated and expensive campaign to confuse you into not acting in your own best interests, but instead to act in their best interests. Being a teacher, I do not like to see this happen.

Emily, you make a very good point. A very recent study has shown that the health effects alone of burning so much carbon-based fuel costs America 120 billion dollars a year.

Everyone will agree that our current way of life is severely damaging our health and our planet in a multitude of ways.  There are a lot of pollutants in our air and ecosystem; and we are not managing our food supply responsibly.  We all have a responsibility to vastly improve this situation, but it's important to not mix these issues and their management up.  Copenhagen is not about improving the health of ourselves or our planet; it is about introducing a taxation system that limits CO2 and methane production, based on arbitrary assessments of potential damage resulting from mathematical models.  The skepticism that some of us feel about the arbitrary nature of this modelling exercise is the topic in this thread.   Neither methane or CO2 are toxic, unless in massive concentrations; you have no worries there. 

Dan,

The short answer to your first question: scientists have used boron isotopes from ancient plankton shells to formulate reasonable estimates of historic ocean pH. For a very good article about this (yes, from a science-based environmental organization):

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lsuatoni/why_scientists_agree_ocean_aci.html

Once again, your state climatologist survey is from a biased source. The World Climate Report web site states:

“Acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate, World Climate Report has become the definitive and unimpeachable source for what Nature now calls the “mainstream skeptic” point of view, which is that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best expectation is modest change over the next 100 years.”

Probably more importantly, 36 scientists participated in this survey. The survey I posted had 3,146 participants.

Your acid rain link is to an article (it is NOT a referenced scientific paper) that was issued by the Cato institute. Their mission statement reads:

“The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.”

Talk about a political agenda – this is the fount of libertarian viewpoints! Just from a quick skim, there are a number of statements made that I would dispute (as I said, there are NO REFERENCES, so it is rather pointless to go further).

I clearly stated in one of my earlier posts why Mitchell Taylor was uninvited to the PBSG. It has nothing to do with “stifling debate.” He makes a public name and money by denying anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) because the big, dirty energy corporations continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into promoting and funding those scientists how will deny AGCC. Yet again, please watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

The paper you quote to refute Cruz is poorly footnoted, and is filled with unsubstantiated statements. This is not good research. For one, it refuses to consider the fact that glaciers appear to be melting at an accelerating rate. Cruz’s worst-case projection is based on a continued acceleration of melt rates, which is a possibility, and would be an ecological catastrophe on a historically unprecedented scale. You don’t believe we should ignore this possibility, do you?

Your other source about the Siachen glacier is also poorly footnoted, with statements (including the one you quote) with little or no data to support them. For an alternate viewpoint with at least the same credibility, if not more:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/ATMS111%20Presentations/Folder%203/HughesS_BedionesJ.pdf

Your last example has some very nice pictures, but no footnotes at all, and is a little hard to evaluate. The author seems to be saying that not all of the glaciers in the region are retreating, and some may be advancing, but he gives no hard data to back this up. He seems to accept the fact that AGCC is happening, and will have an effect on the region. The pictures are quite spectacular.

A question for you – why would the EPA post this:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

?

Another non-peer-reviewed paper by a geophysicist (not a climatologist) who obviously doesn't think highly of AGCC. He states that his paper is to promote discussion. It did, a little.