There’s also the question of do we really want to know what happens if we keep pumping all these green house gasses into the environment for X number of years? I think it will help the economy if we can be sure we don’t add to the tensions of the World through our having a negative affect on the weather patterns.

An interesting physics paper on why CO2 in the atmosphere CAN’T be the culprit behind the proposed warming trend:

HERE.

And don’t worry, it’s a REAL paper.  Not from a blog.

Huli,

No one doubts that it is slightly warmer now than it was in the say, 70’s.  But there have been warmer periods in history. As recent as the 1930’s temps were higher than they are now!  I personally think that the Earth goes through 30 year heating/cooling cycles. (Actually 33 year, based on triploid solar cycles, but I won’t quibble over 3 years.)  When i was growing up, there was heavy snow on the ground here from Sept to May.  The past three years are coming back to that trend. Looking back through the records, it seems that this holds true. (Hence the reason fr the dustbowl. 20-odd ‘wet’ years ended and the ‘dry’ years began.  Like then, we will adapt.

The whole problem with AGW is there is NO WAY to disprove it. Question the theory and you are a “heretic” or “Denier”.  I am as green as anyone I know. I use low energy bulbs. i re-use and cut my family’s waste as much as possible. (I DON’T recycle. But that is a different issue….)  I spend a LOT of time out on the land.

If someone present ironclad proof that AGW was false IT WOULDN’T MATTER.  An “enviro-nationalist” group is at the head of this whole thing.  They really do believe that we should be punished for our achievements, and feel that the Earth would be better off without man. Period.  The current frenzy only feeds their coffers and ambitions.

Instead of jumping on the bandwagon, LOOK at the numbers used.  Find out how they were altered and “nudged” across the board to ‘confirm’ warming.  Find out how they have cut and trimmed warmer periods out of their model so as to make them look more impressive.

Play the Devil’s Advocate for a few days.  Check the data for yourself. Prove the null hypothesis.  Don’t believe ANYTHING unless you can see the numbers behind it.  THAT is science.  Not “I believe because everyone else does.”

I trust the information given by the people I know personally studying in Africa, South America, Canada, England, the Mid East, Orient etc,. Dave.  These are folks who have been studying the oceans by going into them, people who study animals from the tiniest to the largest, those who study migrations,behavior and changes to behavior, mutations, deaths, new species and changes slight to huge in the water, on land and the consequences of a fragile atmosphere pressing into a direction.  These are people right here at Towson University whose fields are wide but their data and research spreading over decades peak together in a single conclusion that not a one had intended when they began their travels and research so many years ago…..that what they gathered was netting together with colleagues whose research seemed to be in a very different direction. 

It takes on a few degrees, almost unnoticeable by human senses really, to make disastrous effects occur over a period of 2-3 decades.  It What matters is that the ices to the north are melting, and they are melting rapidly.  Ice only melts when it becomes heated either by air or a chemical source.  (Most of us realized this even before we went to kindergarten).

While charts and graphs are neat ways to project the future via the past, they are only that, little charts and numbers.  I do not need numbers to realize the sky is falling when I can look up myself and see it and then hope I have time enough to dig a hole or get out of the way.

why is it every progressive policy and every one that does not involve flatening a country is called socialist? as a socialist myself i think global warming is an area beyond capitalist or socialist ideology

hulitoons - 14 December 2009 02:58 PM

I trust the information given by the people I know personally studying in Africa, South America, Canada, England, the Mid East, Orient etc,. Dave.  These are folks who have been studying the oceans by going into them, people who study animals from the tiniest to the largest, those who study migrations,behavior and changes to behavior, mutations, deaths, new species and changes slight to huge in the water, on land and the consequences of a fragile atmosphere pressing into a direction.  These are people right here at Towson University whose fields are wide but their data and research spreading over decades peak together in a single conclusion that not a one had intended when they began their travels and research so many years ago…..that what they gathered was netting together with colleagues whose research seemed to be in a very different direction. 

It takes on a few degrees, almost unnoticeable by human senses really, to make disastrous effects occur over a period of 2-3 decades.  It What matters is that the ices to the north are melting, and they are melting rapidly.  Ice only melts when it becomes heated either by air or a chemical source.  (Most of us realized this even before we went to kindergarten).

While charts and graphs are neat ways to project the future via the past, they are only that, little charts and numbers.  I do not need numbers to realize the sky is falling when I can look up myself and see it and then hope I have time enough to dig a hole or get out of the way.

Huli: be aware that the fact that, as you observe, things change, does however not mean that what is happening is unnatural. Nature (including climate and ecology) is not stable. Too many people seem to be unaware of that basic fact.

No, the earth is pristine and never changes, we must preserve it the way it is now and it must never change, for it has never changed before until man can along and ruined everything.  We must stop this unnatural change that may be occurring by any means necessary. 

Yes we should cut back on pollution, anyone who thinks otherwise is a bit off.  We all have to live here no one wants to breath dirty air and whatnot.  But lets not go overboard trying to stop what is most likely a natural cycle, because we couldn’t stop it even if we had a zero carbon “footprint”.

I am aware that climate change is natural.  I am also aware that it usually takes a period of time to occur (though historically not always when an unusual event happens).  However, the changes we’re seeing are not gradual and it’s not happening just because of use of fossil fuels either.  Many of the causes include deforestation, particularly in undeveloped (by US standards) countries.  There are many things that we humans are doing that change climate beyond technology.

I’ll let the DailyExpress paper explain it:

Global Warming: 100 reasons Why It Is Natural

“7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

 
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited

And

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

I don’t think you have to worry much about your concerns though Dave.  As I said before, the United States will not gracefully just surrender anything:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6812210/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Ed-Miliband-admits-failings.html

(remember too that it is not just using fossil fuel that fouls the air; undeveloped countries such as Brazil have been chopping down the rainforest and other mass tree forests (as have many African countries) for years despite the fact that these massive tree areas have always filtered the globe’s air, and in spite of our attempts to curb them of this rape.)

By Louise Gray, Environment correspondent in Copenhagen
Published: 6:00AM GMT 14 Dec 2009

The talks were suspended for five hours because the African group of nations, supported by the G77 and China, refused to move forward until the rich world agreed to consider binding targets on cutting carbon emissions.

Tensions rose and noisy

the world now only has

Pardon me if I remain skeptical of the true aims of this group:

But he insisted the treaty will remain in place until a new legally-binding deal is agreed, that will not only force the countries signed up to the Kyoto Protocol to cut emissions but the US and developing countries as well.