If "human CO2 " has no (or very little) effect on the environment I can keep the same lifestyle with less money!
Don't forget renewable energies are more expensive than burning oil, at the current date.

That's why if those countries that fail to the Kioto protocol will have to pay for the "extra CO2 "... to enable renewable energies...

I would like someone from the bad-science, man-is-not-responsible, hot-and-cold-periods-are-the-norm camp to field this question...

Let's say you're right. Then that means what? What do you gain? To me it's as if you resent being presented with evidence that might require you to change your lifestyle. It's like a terribly obese person arguing with doctors that tell him his life of indulgence is putting his health in danger. What does he gain but to get to be more indulgent? Is that the motivation you are trying to defend?

For me, even if it turned out that humans are having ZERO impact on the environment, I'm still going to do whatever I can to minimize any negative effect I could be having on our singularly hospitable planet. It's the only rational, logical choice, the way I see it.

Gore's success in rousing Western middle class concerns over GW seems well documented,
but that success is as yet actually undocumented with regard to the degree of action that can be expected of those recruits.

Gore's failure lies in the plain error of what he proposes as a resolution -
a 90% cut for developed nations and enough of a cut by developing nations to give a 50% cut globally.

According to IPCC we need a cut of 60 to 80 percent just to stop adding to the problem of excess airborne GHGs.

And far more if we're to recover significant volumes from the atmosphere.

Gore is not a scientist - let him call for Convergence to global per-capita-parity of emissions entitlements by all means,
but let him also leave to the IPCC scientists the setting of the Contraction target (under which those entitlements shrink annually).

Thus far, given that EU, Africa, India and others have made plain their commitment to Contraction & Convergence;
Gore's refusal to name this requisite framework and his diversionary waffle about a 50% global cut
are not only downright offensive,
the also form the latest US prevarication away from serious negotiation.

And, incidentally, a lot of Americans are getting badly misinformed.

regards,

Billhook

Little Ice Age, you say. Well I won't argue with that. Our current climate is warm enough to make a few hundred years ago look like a Little Ice Age. When we are suffering from droughts or floods, or violent weather, it will be quite comforting to apply that label to our plight.

I'm tired of stating the obvious. I will give you credit for lasting so long on this page. I don't envy you the position of trying to find evidence against anthropogenic global warming. It must be an arduous task, right up there with trying to find evidence that we are winning the war in Iraq.

Escualido,___The only reason I have taken any time to respond to you, is because by chance, some may read your nonsense and believe you.

The thousands of ice core samples taken at the Earth's poles, and the spectroanalysis readings taken from those samples, PROVE, ___beyond a shadow of doubt, that almost all you write on this subject, is absolutely incorrect.___ Case closed.!!

Evelyn: thanks for your book review. CERN is preparing an experiment called CLOUD to which will participate some 50 scientists, scheduled for 2010 to test Svensmark's theory. Do you know what CERN is? Is it a locus of jokers who are coming right out of George Lucas brain? Please try to think "outside the box", in an independent way, you may even find it rewarding eventually.

jstevens: Yes CO2 concentrations have gone up for human reasons and others. But it is not the first time, it has happened before and some studies show a relation between temperature and CO2 concentration but in those studies the CO2 increase lags the temperature increase. So it seems that CO2 increase is a result of temperature increase that squeeze out CO2 out of the ocean. As for the glacier, please consider we are still coming out of the Little Ice Age. Even ifmyou are a firm believer in GW, have a look at other ideas as well or are you afraid that this could shatter your beliefs? I do not make money either out of GW. I am only interested in trying to assess the state of the subject, independent of Exxon, the IPCC, the AEI or other entities who have an agenda on which I am not at all interested. I only want to say that so far, despite the doom and gloom and maybe partly because of it, I am not convinced. There is too many contradicting evidence. Also, some work that I did with satellite data recently has also cast more doubts in my mind on this topic.

Escualido, you are ignoring positivie feedback loops which I already addressed above.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO-2 levels were relatively stable for thousands of years, at about 200-280 ppm. Today's CO-2 levels are 381 ppm. The advent of the machine is the obvious cause. There is no other explanation for an increase of about 37% in this very short period of time.

As for Exxon Mobil, why don't you do a quick search? Even the MSM reported that Exxon had spent about 16 million dollars to cast doubt on GW.

Even if you eschewed science entirely, simple observation reveals that the planet is warming up.

In 1988 I stood at the Visitor Center of the beautiful Portage Glacier in
Alaska, the massive glacier resplendent in the background. Now, less than 20 years later, there is no glacier. Glaciers melt, sure, but not at this rate. The signs of climate crisis are everywhere. The evidence is so overwhelming that any scientist who doubts it is suspicious. What do you think about an Intergovernmental Panel with thousands of scientists from over a hundred countries, who have stated unequivocally that burning fossil fuels is heating the planet. I would really LOVE to be wrong. I don't make any money talking about GW, and in fact I spend a LOT of time.

Escualido, you write, how about The Chilling Stars?

The Chilling Stars story is actually nothing more than fiction, which was based upon one man's "theory" that Earth's global warming is caused by radiation from our sun. Star Wars is an interesting story also.

China is investing huge sums of money, several billion, for development of solar/wind power. They are years ahead of the United states there. Denmark currenty uses wind power to produce 20% of their electrical power and will advance to 50% in the next few years.

jstevens: I do not know the situation with Exxon but to claim that Exxon paid any scientist who would discredit the Panel's findings $10,000 is a little far fetched and smells of conspiracy theory. No doubt that Exxon has likely tried and probably succeded to tweak the issue with science writers or even "rogue" scientists who have nothing else to loose, but to think that you will buy a conscious scientist with this amount that may jeopardize his entire carrier is dubious to say the least. Your comment infers that anyone in the field who is not on the side of WG is a potential mercenary. In fact, the counter argument also runs around, that there is so much money in GW research that it attracts scientists like bees around the honey pot. There could be some who are attracted to that aspect, but please by all means lets not generalize.

The comparison between Venus and the Earth is so exaggerated that it is hardly worth commenting. It is like comparing apples and oranges. Gore is doing far more harm to the cause of GW than good.

CO2 is only one of the greenhouses gases and represent some 3 percent of the total in the atmosphere. The annual contribution of man-made CO2 to the atmosphere represents less than 4 percent of the total annual influx. That gives you a sense of proportion. Man-made CO2 is no big deal and this is one of the factors the GW skeptics (GW deniers?) consider to question GW. There is far from a consensus on the subject. Latest studies have also decreased the effect. The IPCC is going through another iteration of their report and the latest results will be presented soon.

GW is based on an assumption and is using general circulation models with a lot of parameters (Occam Razor anyone?). They then are tweaked to reproduce results based on the assumption, contradict one another and fit the recent historical period with large errors. There is no unified theory just modeling. Any alternate contradictory theory is rejected as bogus science.

Finally I said that Junk Science is a good place to start but seldom a good place to end. Like Wikipedia, use it to get to sites where the claims can be verified. If you stay only within the website, you are doomed.

Hypothesis A: There's a warming due to natural causes (non antropogenic).
So it's pointless to make an effort on reducing CO2, and MASSIVE investment in expensive renewable energies is an economical nonsense (except for the promoters of this energy…).

Hypothesis B: There's a global warming due, mainly, to antropogenic causes.
Solution: Let's assume that a 50% reduction of actual CO2 releasing would do the trick. This is impossible to accomplish! Nature was not "built" on an altruistic manner. Mankind has the ability to think long term, but has (together with the rest of all other species) also a built-in machinery to cheat. To understand the details please read the chapter on The Prisoners Dilemma, in Richard Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene".
Any "country" that refuses to accept this "hard-core" type of "Quioto" protocol will have obvious advantages on economic terms, in the short-term, EVEN if in the long-term EVERYBODY will loose.
What would "the rest of the world" do? Invade China, or the US, or any other major country that thinks "my country first, let the others do the hard work"?

Please, do something with obvious advantages: keep your eyes opened for water pollution, air pollution (CO2 is NOT a pollutant!), plastics on the sea, landscape misuse, and so on.

You may argue that the same "let the others care, let me pollute" applies. It's not so obvious. If a factory dumps some pollutants into a river, fishermen and other water users may, and should, demand some kind of compensation. An act/consequence relation is "easy" to establish and responsibilities may be pinpointed. In the CO2 case that would be almost impossible…

Thank you Evelyn Smith. Actually I am a female. We are both the opposite of what our screen names might imply.

rob.price--I completely share your concern about man's interference. The balance of nature is complex far beyond our ability to grasp it. There is so much evidence that everytime man inerferes, (like the cane toads) we create a problem much larger than the one we were trying to fix.

I am interested to read about the Garbage Patch. I imagine as much when I can stand to think about it.

Gregory the Great:

Thanks I pretty much agree with the points you are making. Another avenue you might want to consider is a term in neuroscience referred to as "selective cueing" to whit what we find unfolding on this entire thread. Notice how those who respond with an authoritarian thunder because their OPINIONS and BELIEFS are superior to any one else. Or the mere mention that they themselves are engaged in interpretive exercises to bolster their own galactic stupidity. Also hilarious is how they take refuge under the umbrella of science as a method to assert their own dysfunctional authority. I especially find amusing their use of the term "junk science" to assert their own superior standing on the thread. Their self-righteousness is appalling and their ignorance of the very standards they claim to uphold is astonishing in scope and praxis.

The truth is, is that the scientific community has found consensus that climate change is caused by human beings. Ignore it to your own peril!

Escualido:

I did not begin my discussion claiming that the scientists are corrupt. I began asking you to state which of the undisputable facts you are disputing. We could start there.

You will recall that I was wondering if you question that CO-2 levels have risen, or if you question that a well-known trait of carbon is to trap heat in the atmosphere. Or if you question the CO-2 content of Venus' atmosphere. Or if you question that the average temperature of Venus is higher than that of Mercury.

I was so curious to hear your reply, yet you avoided those points.

I will however address your other point that I have played the corruption card too readily.

If there was really evidence against anthropogenic global warming, Exxon Mobil would not have to spend millions of dollars getting the word out there.

Look up the two institutions I listed and you will see that, of course, they cast doubt on Global Warming because they are funded by Exxon.

And Ian L. McQueen, thanks so much for the link to the junk science website.

Gee. Junk science was founded by Steven J. Milloy, a "scholar" from: Surprise! The Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

His credentials include working for Phillip Morris, on the secondhand smoke issue.

All of these Exxon Mobil relationships have been discovered, so I suspect Exxon will now be more careful to hide te source.

Even if we weren't sure about Global Warming, does it make any sense to take such a chance? Also, global warming aside, burning fossil fuels, is a huge contributor to other types of pollution. Why not cut back on the fossil fuels for the sake of air and water quality?

In 1975, it was nearly impossible to take an undersea photo in the Bahamas, without having a chunk of plastic float by and get in in the way of the lens. I'd Hate to see it now.

Thank you Rob Price. I will read it.

I hadn't heard about feeding the pytoplankton iron. We are feeding them nuclear waste now and a lot of other types of poisons. We'd better all hope they don't die off. Actually they have begun to.

Whenever scientists start fooling with nature it usually becomes a mess. The honey bee disaster is just one example. Another tragic error of course, was splitting the atom. I really fear they may someday attempt to clone GWB, or even worse Cheney. Of course they could get em both at once by cloning Hitler.

Hey Rob, if you get a chance, read Jacques Costeaus, The Ocean World. It is very well illustrated, and very well written. It is an important book.

If anyone does not believe global warming is not happening and not happening like it has never happened in the past four million years, and you live anywhere on the planet that is not at least 60 feet above sea level, you should stay there.

If you do believe it. I have a beautiful sixty foot sea going house boat with twin marine Gray diesels for sale. It has all of the toys. It's docked at the marina in Rock Hall, Md. A phone number for the selling agent is on the posted sign.

A lot of happenings written on this blog.

Oh, Jstevens is correct and he is the man who writes the pertenant data on the hazards of burning coal. You should listen to him, he's a pretty smart guy.

jstevens, -and anyone else who is interested-

I believe feeding iron to phytoplankton is off the table for the moment. Thankfully! When I first heard that, I thought "Oh, No. They've reinvented the cane toad" (Cane toad introduction to take care of the sugar cane beetle --talk about an example of a miserable mistake)

One of the concerns is feeding iron sulphate might actually have the reversed effect. When creating additional phytoplankton to grab more carbon dioxide the increased growth would also increase the solar radiation absorption and heat the planet. So many intricate layers. Terribly complex, and fascinating stuff.

Your mention about garbage and fishing. Perhaps you've heard of the The Great Pacific Garbage Patch? Formed by the North Pacific Gyre, the trash accumulates.

The wikipedia link below has pretty good summary plus a nice list of additional links for anyone who might be interested exploring the issue. The LATIMES link is a five part series title, "Altered Seas"

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

The accumulated garbage patch size today? Think the size of Texas. I just feel numb sometimes. I want to get a flotilla of boats together and begin a effort to recycle the trash break it down, get it out of sea mammals path and digestive tracts.

I'm off. Have a good one everybody.
Talk soon

Evelyn: How about "The Chilling Stars" by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder for a start.

jstevens: So they are all corrupts? Well what a way to start a discussion ... and end it speedily.

Ian: a good place to start but not to finish. There are plenty of other sites by reputed scientists, unless they are on the payroll of big oil of course. Meanwhile one of the main tools that convinced policy makers to go ahead with the Kyoto protocol was the famous "hockey stick" temperature graph by Michael Mann. This graph was subsequently discredited but it was to late to shut the global warming flood gate. Wait a few years and these people will be the laughing stock of the scientific community and it will be a double whammy for Gore after having lost the presidency. He might be even more dangerous than the current incumbent of the White House. The latter only wants to control democracy (silly him), the former wants to control climate. What a program!

I see that we are still getting the usual ad hominems (anyone opposing the AGW pseudo consensus is obviously being paid off by Exxon, etc.) and unfounded opinions supporting the AGW hypothesis. May I suggest that you learn some science about climate instead of just repeating the nonsense perpetrated by Al gore in AIT? Let me make it easy for you to educate yourself. Read through everything that comes up at http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Feel free to contact me at climatetruth@hotmail.com

Ian

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Escualido:
i should not pay any attention to you but I can't resist.

What part of the description of Venus and Earth do you believe has no scientific basis? Look up Venus and carbon and you will see that no one disputes the statements made by Al Gore.

If carbon traps heat in the atmosphere, more carbon equals more heat. This is about a complicated a concept as 1 + 1 = 2

So are you claiming that carbon levels have not increased, or are you claiming that carbon does not trap heat in the atmosphere?

Your list of Scientists is not very impressive. Exxon Mobile has spent millions of dollars attempting to cast doubt on global warming. Following the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Exxon paid any scientist who would discredit the Panel's findings $10,000.

Everytime I see a scientist disputing man-made climate change, they are linked in someway to Exxon-Mobil funded "think tanks" such as American Enterprise Institute or Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Your list has shown that you are able to come up with 11 corrupt individuals. No great feat.

Oh, please give me some material I have not already read.

Maybe you should take your own advice. My children are already fearful, they can read also ___and people like you and scientist who deny global warming frightens me. All one really has to do, is look for themselves and study the technical data given by the ice core samples taken at the poles.

If you have been at it 30 years, maybe a few more days looking at contrarian evidence is not much to ask. Wish you good luck in your quest and please ... don't scare the kids.

Iammysef and Escualido: As a matter of fact, I have been reading and studying the subject of global warming for almost thirty years. I fully understand the reasons for, and the possible and the probable results we should expect, if we don't seriosly attempt to reverse the trend. I have also written three books on the subject, (not published under this code name of Evelyn). And I will never attempt to sell them on this website.

As to speaking on the the probable deadly results of what may occur, such as when the permafrost melts and billions of tons of methane gas is released. That is not my opinion, nor is it gazing into a crystal ball, nor is from listening to Al Gore. That is how it will be. The reult will be the death of most life on this planet, and then the death of the planet as it was, a blue and white water planet.___ Earth is rare indeed, we know of only one, until another is located, Earth is unique in the entire universe.

There may still be life on Earth when the sun burns it. If there is any life on Venus for example, it is very likely not the type you or I are familiar with.

Writing about all life ending is not pleasnat, or even a nice thought. It often turns people off, that actually is a big problem, for it is a subject we should all speak of, as global warming and the results of it, is a rather serious subject. It is a subject of concern for me, as I have children and grandchildren and I do not wish to see them die, because of our stupidity.

By the majority, I meant you are badly misinformed and unaware of the truth. It is nothing for an inteligent person to be delighted about.

Evelyn,

The following link contains a list of 60 scientists who have asked the Prime Minister of Canada to take a back step with respect to the Kyoto Protocol because the science of global warming is on shaky ground:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

Evelyn:

1. Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles

2. Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists

3. Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government

4. Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada

5. Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife

6. Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.

7. Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences)

8. Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm

9. Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw

10. Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa

11. Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa

I also can continue the list if you want

Escualido,

Name ten "knowledgeable reputed contrarian scientists" that have refuted global warming.

Evelyn, et al,

I believe, as do the vast majority of scientific scientists, that global warming is real and upon us and having deleterious effects. It will get worse.

The thing I have a hard time with is when people take out their crystal balls and declare with certainty that everything will die. This is just not verifiable nor even reasonable. Scientists are finding life right here on this planed in places (e.g. ocean floor vents) where it was once thought no life could survive. Many species are highly adaptable.

Of course, this is cold comfort for species as delicate as ours - depending on how bad things get, we could be toast. But, I still blanch when I hear prognostications that are impossible to prove. It really doesn't add the debate.

Evelyn: first, I am delighted to learn that I am in the majority, I thought it was the other way around. About Artic and Antartic ice, methane in permafrost (which by the way I studied while in University then worked on for a while), I know what the claims are by the global warming side. Yet every one of those has been refuted by knowledgeable reputed contrarian scientists. Where does that leave us? Time to consider the issue seriously rather than peddle scaremongering. BTW one of the issues that eludes the global warming scientists is that contrary to your assertion, Antartica is cooling while the rest of the planet is warming (but just a bit). This is really a thorn on their side. But at least one alternate theory of what is currently going on can explain this phenomenon. Rather than accept gullibly everything Gore says, why don't you google a little to find out what the current state of the controversy is and come up with an honest independent opinion. Depending on your familiarity with science, you may learn a few things that will help you sleep better rather than fear that the planet will burn out of control.

Escualido__Hmmmm. Have you happened to have read or seen anything at all about the "enormous" and rapidly shrinking of the Arctic ice and the also rapid shrinking of the mile thick ice slabs in Antarctica?

Did you know there are billions of tons of methane gas trapped in the arctic's permafrost? That gas has been safely trapped there for over four million years. Do you know that almost all of the Arctic permafrost has been frozen for four million years and now it is beginning to defrost?

Are you aware that if and when that methane gas is released into the atmosphere, the sun's rays will ignite it and before long Earth and Venus will be twins? Of course you don't know. That's okay,___ you are in the majority.

Gore advised the audience to compare the blue orb of the Earth to Venus, where daytime temperatures reach 867 degrees Fahrenheit and it rains sulphuric acid. The two planets have the same amount of carbon, "Gore advised the audience to compare the blue orb of the Earth to Venus, where daytime temperatures reach 867 degrees Fahrenheit and it rains sulphuric acid. Gore explained, but Venus' just happens to be in the atmosphere, while most of the Earth's is still locked underground. "The habitability of this planet for human beings really is at risk," he said."

Is this fellow for real? While he is peddling science fiction, a growing number of top climate scientists are turning their back on the global warming gospel. Not too soon! Natural annual CO2 fluxes from oceans and land into the atmosphere are about 170 gigatons while man-made annual fluxes are some 6 gigatons. So, where is the big problem? Look elsewhere for an explanation to global warming that BTW seems to have leveled off over the last two years.

Al Gore said, "There's an African proverb that says, 'If you want to go quick, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.' We have to go far quickly."

Brotherhood constitutes a fact of relationship between every personality in universal existence. No person can escape the benefits or the penalties that may come as a result of relationship to other persons. The part profits or suffers in measure with the whole. The good effort of each man benefits all men; the error or evil of each man augments the tribulation of all men. As moves the part, so moves the whole. As the progress of the whole, so the progress of the part. The relative velocities of part and whole determine whether the part is retarded by the inertia of the whole or is carried forward by the momentum of the cosmic brotherhood. TUB Paper 12, Part 7, Paragraph 11

There is only ONE issue concerning the ocean's plant life that should concern us.

The pytoplankton supply us with 70% of our oxygen!!! If that form of life is eliminated, ALL life, save perhaps some microbes is cut off. That is it____ period!!

The planet may survive mankind's stupidity, but why should mankind keep attempting To destroy it and kill all life on the planet in the process,___ that is nuts,___ insanity.

Thank you for your comments, Evelyn Smith and rob.price.

I don't understand the role of phytoplankton in global warming. Initially, I read that research was being done to seed the oceans with iron to promote growth of phytoplankton because of all the CO-2 it could capture.

Then I read that phytoplankton traps heat and is a contributor to global warming. The same paradoxical effect has been discussed with forests--they absorb a lot of CO-2 but also absorb heat because of their dark color (low albedo)

My instinct is to believe it would still be better over all to have lots more plants and trees to absorb the CO-2, and that the heat absorbing effect of dark plants is secondary.

With the barbaric fishing and dumping practices that occur, that anything grows in the oceans is a testament to the resiliency of the Earth, and perhaps offers some hope for the future.

Keep it up.
Jackie

jstevens July 20th, 2007 4:23 pm

There is also the issue of solar radiation being absorb by phytoplankton. It is not just CO2 that is heating the planet. Nonetheless, the American model of consumption is the real problem. no doubt.

Ian and all you right wing trolls denying the existence of global warming: the US military is taking it more seriously than you are. They are planning for how to cope with future water fights and mass migrations. Unfortunately they are taking a nationalistic view of the problem. But... that's our military for you. Cheers.

Chris D,

To your point, the problem with human perception you alluded to is only one of many. A number of cognitive scientists dispute the existence of conscious will entirely and have evidence to support their contention. Some state that humans make primarily subconscious and emotional decisions. Then, mistake those decisions as having a conscious origin, and finally proceed unconsciously to ignore any facts that undermine their emotional decision, and backfill with those facts that support the position. Then ego claims the decision as it's own and defends it irrationally, as if it were a matter of life and death.

Worse yet, none of us actually perceive the world as it is, at best, our brains create as one writer called it, "semblances" of reality. It seems that given our limited conscious processing power, or bandwidth, so to speak, that short cut is essential for survival. Like horseshoes and hand grenades; with perception, it seems that close is often good enough.

The upshot seems to be that evolution equipped us to deal with a world in which all survival related problems were handled by the "flight or fight" response. However, now that our survival related challenges are mostly distant, long-term threats, our "primitive" responses leave us ill equipped to deal with this new man-made environment. Dangers that are not urgent or sudden don't seem to register in consciousness very well and we show little alarm, even if we notice them. Unfortunately, there isn't time for us to evolve new defense mechanisms before the environment becomes seriously degraded.

The reason there are so many Jstevens, is because they are protecting their butts; they don't want to be swept away and locked up when Cheney and Bush take full control of the country.

The key for Earth's survival, is the pytoplankton. Trees, bushes, grass all absorb
CO2, about thirty percent of it. The other near seventy percent is taken care of by the ocean's plant life. We do need the trees, for that and many other good reasons.

We are rapidly killing off our ocean's plant and animal life, primarily with carbon and uranium pollution.

We must take it one FAST step at a time! A "massive" world wide effort to use the free and clean, wind and solar energy, and begin to close down every coal fired plant and nuke facility. We can and should immediately STOP using DU for anythig whatsoever. Gore is on target and if he WAS or could be the president, he WOULD start the ball rolling.

Reality is, we are likely not going to ever see anything good happen in those respects, no matter what we or Gore may say or write.

Excellent blog jstevens, glad you are here.

Chris D
"Ecology 101 asserts that Trees represent the lungs of the earth"

Bold statement, "Chris D". Maybe just outdated.

The term "lungs of the earth" is essentially an analogy to try and get people to encompass the importance of forests and jungles and how oxygen is created, carbon sinks, etc. I suppose one could assert trees are the lungs of the earth if one is defining the earth as terrain while excluding the ocean, but that would be an outdated analogy. If one were to include the oceans as part of the earth, then the earth's trees are certainly part of the "earth's lungs" just like the phytoplankton are too!

key word: phytoplankton

I am wondering how the Cat explains ozone depletion?

Wow. I really can't believe there are still people on this website who doubt that human activity is causing Global Warming.

Ian McQueen is correct that water has a more potent mechanism to trap heat in the atmosphere than CO-2. However, what is happening is that the extra heat trapped by the CO-2 causes more evaporation of water, and thus more water enters the atmosphere, trapping more heat. It is one of many positive feedback loops in place that is causing rising temperatures. Just as when light reflecting (white) snow and ice melt, the dark land revealed traps more heat. This is why the poles are showing a much more drastic warming than temperate zones.

Consider the planets. Mercury is the closest planet to the sun, yet Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. Why? Because Venus has high levels of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere.

Nobody disputes the fact that CO-2 levels have risen about 37% in the past 200 years. Nobody disputes the fact that the increase has come from burning fossil fuels. Nobody disputes the fact that carbon traps heat in the atmosphere.

There is a very simple connection here.

Of course, it is common sense that 6.7 billion people can affect the climate. One could just look images of coal smoke stacks, traffic jams, forests burned away for agriculture, and deduce that we are destroying the planet.

I am also so tired of hearing that Al Gore threw the election away because he did not do what the Black Caucus instructed. The Supreme Court is the final authority. There was nothing to be done following their ruling. It is suspicious that so much hatred has been generated from Gore's refusal to pursue a lost cause. It is suspicious that Mr. Gore, the champion of the planet, gets so many negative posts on this progressive website. Notice that all of the articles are full of praise for Al Gore. Yet a strange amount of negativity crops up on the posts.

Here is another significant issue relating to Climate Change: http://dieoff.org/page47.htm

Ecology 101 asserts that Trees represent the lungs of the earth. No trees, species extinction follows. Start getting ready for the end game.

The truth is, I swiped that pytoplankton quote from the book, The Ocean World, by Jacques Costeau.

Costeau warned us over forty years ago, few listened.___ I suppose many thought he was one of those crazy flaming liberals.

Actually he was not any such thing, and he was not just oceanographer. Jacques Costeau was a scientist, an inventor, a pilot, an author and a swell guy. He was a friend of the family, and when he and his kids came to town, it was truly a grand time.

Hard to think that there would be anyone left doubting the Climate Crisis of Global Warming . . .

but ignorance marches on !!!

Not only do we have Global Warming -- we don't know how it may compound due to extremes that will be created -- earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and other chaotic weather -- and it is not only humanity which is under threat it is the very existence of this planet.

Try to understand that -- the planet may not survive the chaos we have triggered -- !!!

The planet may not continue turning -- !!!

Thanks also to the poster who contributed this wisdom . ..

QUOTE: Floating in our ocean's are a tiny form of plant life called phytoplankton. The sunrays interact with the green chlorophyll in the plants and by the chemical process of photosynthesis, oxygen is produced. Those tiny plants, produce [70%] of the oxygen in our atmosphere. Kill off even 20 to 25% of that tiny life form, and we can turn out the lghts and tell our children goodby.

Grandma, I did confuse you with another nice blogger, we often joke with one another.

Chris, glad you and many like you are here.

Oh, and Gore isn't likely to run for President of the USA. He's too busy trying to educate the buffoons who refuse to believe they are destroying their own backyards.

And, he's spending his own money to get the message out there. That oughta mean something to those of you who are in denial about this world crisis.

Hi Immyself.

I wrote, if we don't change our ways very soon, everything on this planet will die. I standby that and it could happen very soon.

As granny stated in agrement with me, the pytoplankton are dying off, when that die off reches 25 to 30% all of humanity WILL die and not long after everything else will die. Then when the millions of tons of methane in the Arctic are relesed when the perma frost melts, which will happen, the atmosphere will be a great big ball of fire. When the flames die out, our solar system will have another Venus.

That is reality, in spite of any hopesany may have, or of anything we or Gore says or writes. We have to take it one FAST step at a time, a massive effort to use solar and wind power and shut down all of the coal fired plants and immediately stop th euse of depleted uranium for anything.

Can you say 'political BS?' Do you think The W wants his lemming citizens to know the truth? He's in the oil business, remember? He wants you to believe there's no crisis so you'll buy the bigger SUV and drive, drive, drive.

Do the research and get the true facts on global warming before you deny the possibility. Have you not heard about the hole in the ozone layer of our atmosphere? Do you not understand that it is consistently growing larger because of CO2 emissions? Do you understand what an ecosystem is? Do you know the damage caused by clearing all those jungles and forrests in South America (and other places). Do you understand the affects of over-population on the atmosphere?
(And, please, when you read all those old stories about climate changes, please keep in mind the population factors that helped the planet recover from them.)

Stop posting idiotic comments here until you've researched this issue as much as Gore has, as much as all the eco-scientists have. I find it's good in any argument to know the facts before you put your foot in your mouth. (or up your bovine's butt!)

Gee, Ian, I was thinking of relocating up your way now. Spent summers as a kid at a lovely little lake in Ontario, north of Orelia (north of Toronto) and always wondered why, if my parents loved it so much up there, we didn't just move. Ahh, the innocence of a kid who caught a musky, age 10.

Now I'd like to move (drum roll) NOT because of your health care system, but to exchange all my worthless U.S. $$ and invest in your country instead.

Interesting take on the warming/cooling cycles over the years. I think your close to being accurate there. Problem is, the planet wasn't so over-populated then. Nor were so many zillions of us driving cars that spew CO2 into the atmosphere. There's a hole is the ozone layer. It's growing and growing and growing. When it eventually gets large enough, the sun's rays will have no filering process and the earth will not just warm by a few degrees. The whole earth, btw, not just from the equator to the poles. Canada is not safe. All shorelines will disappear under the oceans due to polar ice melt, along with the permafrost and glaciers. Have you actually seen Gore's movie or read the book.

And for those of you who are out there spewing your political agendas, get over your fine selves. Global Warmbing is NOT a political issue. By the time congress enacts any laws to alleviate the problem, it will be too late. Find out what you can do to decrease your own carbon footprint (have a car? 2? 3?) and start now. If everyone on this planet made some effort toward slowing down GW, we'd all be a little safer.

GWB is all about the oil. It's how he's made his fortune. Too bad he and his cronies will go out with those hideous smiles on their faces knowing they have so much money in the back. Just no air to breathe. No electricity to cool the air.

This argument goes on forever. If you care even a little bit about the future of Planet Earth, stop reading the right wing 'feel good' crap that denies this crisis and, rather than following the lead lemming off the cliff, head to the library.

It's your life, your posterity. Do something.

here are some fun links
check them out

The Global Warming Swindle. A documentary film is challenged

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/

"Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'"March 11, 2007
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

im amazed he hasnt given up. i applaud him. to stop us killing ourselves would mean we would have to change our human nature of being greedy and competitive. not east.

everybody who denies that global warming is to do with us, and that it will all be ok in a psuedo-philosophical sense is just too scared to admit the truth.

Vern wrote about having to move due to floods and drought. I sympathize with you. There are weather influences that we don't give much thought to, in this case El Nino and La Nina, both of which have far-reaching effects. There is also a solar effect. Even the bible mentions seven good years and seven lean ones, in close agreement with the well-known 13-year solar cycle. I'm not saying that this is the cause of your flooding, but conditions may return to previous in a few years.
Years ago I read that when the white man first travelled in the Great Plains, the area was regarded as wasteland semi-desert. But a change in climate from the mid-1800s brought enough rain and warmth to make it prime agricultural land. Only in recent times did I learn that the world began to warm around 1850. This was the end of the Little Ice Age, a period of several centuries of cold weather, when the Thames River regularly froze over as did New York harbor. And students of US history will recall the intense cold of the winter in Valley Forge and the ice in the river (Delaware? I'm Canadian and can't claim expertise in US history) when Washington crossed it. This was due to the Little Ice Age. It is the end of the Little Ice Age that marks the beginning of our current warming. Since 1850 the world has warmed.....then cooled.....then warmed.....and then cooled slightly since 1998. The warming began long before concerns about CO2 were raised. It is probably entirely natural and unrelated to CO2. (Anyone who questions my doubts about Al Gore will notice that his graph of "dire warming" begins (by great coincidence, doubtlessly.....) in 1850. Any earlier and he would have had to show something like three centuries of cold climate.)

This man Gore would not even lead an investigation into the Jim Crow-ing of black voters in Florida seven years ago, and you all think people should vote for him. He was elected to the presidency before, but would not stand his ground and struggle for an office he was elected to. Gore claims, of course, that any actions along this line would have been seen as "conflict of interest", and would have precipitated a "constitutional crisis". Bullshit. What do we have now? If what we're looking at, in the whole of the body politic, isn't a constitional crisis, the term doesn't mean a damn thing. The reality is that the system is in crisis, period, and it's going to come out one way or another.

No one should trust Gore. If he wouldn't fight when the stakes were much smaller then they are now, what makes him worthy of a major leadership role at this point? Why would anyone believe this man can be counted on in a crunch, when the crunch came and he so clearly failed to measure up? Screw him. He deserves the contempt of the public, he's worked hard for it. Let him fade away quietly, please.

Hope it's not too late to add in a meaningful way to this discussion, but just wanted to mention Thom Hartmann's THE LAST HOURS OF ANCIENT SUNLIGHT.

I mention this book because it does provide hope, and it seems to me that a focus on solutions raises the level of discourse throughout the progressive community, providing opportunity to find common ground and reach together for, as this site's namesake implies, common dreams.

This frighteningly militaristic culture has enough police presence, and unfortunately, the tendency to police each other seems to be spreading throughout free society and onto Internet discussion groups like this one. The commands, demands, and other attempts to tell others what to do just make it harder to see that there is amazing talent on this thread, and there is much to respect and honor in the energy that goes into many of these postings.

Can we find a way to channel all this luminous intellectual energy into a transformative mode?

Gore's done a good job at capitalizing on environmental issues, getting press, money, opportunity, limelight, etc. And his people clearly have a network of influence. Has he leveraged that influence to change legislation and an environmental lobbyist on the outside? To bring young people to the voting booth? To make young people more engaged politically -- for instance, in the Green Party? Gore, even if he didn't run as a Green, might start saying "Green Party" in some of his public appearances, perhaps openly endorsing Greens.

But "Green Party" is still a dirty word to the corporate "environmentalists."

Ther are many things we could be doing. Many of you are waiting for an electric car or other automotive technology and magic, clean electric generating technology that will allow you to to continue your extragavant lifestyle.

The facts are, everyone could be doing a lot to reorder your lifestyles to slash gasoline and electricity usage and have fun doing it.

Even after moving to a suburb, I spend less on gasoline than I do on water - and i'm pretty frugal on water usage. I own a modified electric motor scooter that gets the energy equivalent of 395 miles to a gallon - or I take the bus. I don't use A/C and am considering removong the unused central A/C from my house.

In winter the thermostat stays set at 62 in the day, and 58 at night - except a bit higher in (not very common anymore) sub zero F weather to protect the pipes.

I'm just an ordinary working stiff, so if I can do it others can do it too.

Don't take a job that requires a long commute or doesn't have public transit access. Get over your recist, classist attitudes over using the bus.

From the article Published on Monday, May 14, 2007 by the Independent/UK
Deforestation: The Hidden Cause of Global Warming
by Daniel Howden

"In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?

"...deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total.

"Indonesia became the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world last week. Following close behind is Brazil. Neither nation has heavy industry on a comparable scale with the EU, India or Russia and yet they comfortably outstrip all other countries, except the United States and China.

"What both countries do have in common is tropical forest that is being cut and burned with staggering swiftness. Smoke stacks visible from space climb into the sky above both countries, while satellite images capture similar destruction from the Congo basin, across the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and the Republic of Congo."

*************
-While the effort to brake global warming needs to be addressed from many angles, I find it exceedingly odd that no one is addressing this huge problem that is potentially the easiest to solve: not Gore, not media, not posters to this site.
lf

Gore has the scientific community behind him. That might explain why he ran with Lieberman and why he took positions unpopular with progressives. Scientific research concluded that the majority of sheeple would often vote for regressive issues and/or that despite a liberal majority, taking these views would enhance the fundraising that determines the election.

I can understand why Gore eschews realist politics. It plays to win for funders and voting segments, not for democracy, human rights or other egalitarian principles. Similarly, I'm sure Murdoch knew that by supporting Hillary she would lose progressive support. The money-power pays people 24/7 to find ways to beat the competition, which in this case is good government.

We can only hope that Gore enters the race as a Green or Independent, supported by the public instead of by private tyrannies.

The perspective that human activity is just part of nature, and so we should just keep doing what we are doingand just let nature take care of itself, even if it means human extinction, has a name. It is called nihilism. Nihilism is a mental illness to be treated with appropriate drugs and therapy.

"Another blithely writes, (it's normal, it gets hot, people die and then the temperature stabelizes.)___ Uh-huh, well pal, a lot of people are going to die off here pretty soon now__ and not just people, every living thing on this lttle world is going to die if we don't change our ways___ and change them soon."

Evelyn,

C'mon man, get a grip. Not every little thing on this planet will die. Every little human or every little animal or every little multi-celled organism may die, but that is far from every little thing. There have been die-offs before and life has continued and evolved (though, it appears as if it has devolved).

We really need to start seeing the forest for the trees here. Global warming is real, as any sentient being will attest to. The reasons may be many, though it appears as if human activity is adding to the problem. We should learn from when we were children and realize that we can't have it all and we have to forgo some things in order for there to be things in the future. Instant gratification didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.

The writer who said that nature will take care of itself is absolutely correct. There is a balance to the universe and it will win out, as it always does. Yes, many people will suffer and die (and already have) and the cycle will probably start all over again with the narcissists wanting more than their share and the gutless fools who give in to them and stick their heads up their asses will facilitate more of the same. Still, those of conscience must still do what we can to rectify things and mitigate the pain. It's the dance we're all in.

I read with interest the comments on my posting Thursday. Probably no one will still be reading here, but I'll post some replies anyway.
I have two degrees in chemical engineer, a discipline that teaches one how to analyze problems from the point of view of science, not belief. What Gore is preaching is a secular religion, where belief is enough to override the facts. I spend at least an hour a day reading material on climate. I have read hundreds of scientific papers, postings from informed people, and the like. My "Climate" file has around 500 entries. Those are the ones that I kept. I have read far more than that. I consider myself reasonably well informed on the subject.
The most important "greenhouse gas" is NOT CO2. It is WATER. As vapor and clouds, water is responsible for up to 95% of the "greenhouse" effect. Carbon dioxide is only a minor player. In addition, the effect of CO2 on temperature is - the first 20ppm has as much effect as the next 260ppm. Doubling from 260 would cause only a small fraction of a degree warming. These are all facts. Inconvenient, to be sure, to one with a comfortable "carbon dioxide is the culprit and we are all doomed" view of the world. (And a sidenote on the "greenhouse" effect: in a greenhouse, the air is trapped; in the case of the Earth, air can rise unlimited and diffuse heat.
To the person who referred to the (in)famous 928 papers, I suggest a search using "Oreske" and read the full story of how the results of her search depended entirely on the words used to do the search. She was looking simply for papers that supported or opposed the idea of AGW. Very few papers are so wide sweeping. They normally cover only a tiny aspect of the question and the the abstract (which is all that she read) would not give a useful conclusion. Her conclusion was, to put it bluntly, meaningless as an attempt to show that there is an "overwhelming consensus" among climate scientists. There isn't.
Referring to the reports from the IPCC as solid evidence are an indication of naivite. Anyone who reads extensively quickly learns that the IPCC process is political more than scientific, and that results contradicting the pre-chosen conclusion that "it is all man's fault" are subordinated to the dominant orthodoxy or ignored completely. The "Summary for Policy Makers", released early this year, came out before the scientific reports on which it was supposedly based. This is backwards from the way true science is conducted. One must be sceptical of from the IPCC.
I am not being "paid off" by anybody. I have looked at the science behind the beliefs behind AGW and find them wanting. One finds that those who support the AGW hypothesis are quickest to try to smear anyone who does not agree with them while the sceptics are stronger on the science. Keep in mind that it is easier to get a research grant to (try to) find further proof of AGW than to refute the notion. The latter is virtually impossible in today's atmosphere. There is an entire industry built around obtaining research grants, and very large numbers of people are dependent on keeping the AGW ball rolling.
The human race has adapted to any other changes that have taken place, and adaptation to any climate changes that MIGHT occur makes far more sense than destroying our economy and way of life on the that trying to make huge reductions in CO2 emissions would have some effect on climate. I fear that the hair-shirt brigade is using "climate change" to bring about their social program.
That's enough for now.

Best regards.
Ian M

Vern, I agree. I voted for Nader in 2000. If Gore gets in for 2008, he has got my vote. If not Gore, I will again be voting for Nader or another Third Party Candidate. Clinton is a republican disguised as a Democrat, Edwards has one of the worst voting records on the environment while in the Senate, and Oboma is a corporate candidate. As far as I am concerned it is Gore or no one. Kucinich of course is right on the mark but he gets no main stream press coverage.

What amazes me is that some will totally IGNORE the Gore of the present and bemoan his past associated with the Clinton DLC trend which, right now, in the present reality continues through Clinton monopolization of the power structure. Gore has repudiated it and these two things are NOT equivilant in the here and now --so get real and live in the present.

As long as we are brandishing educational tattoos, I hold advanced degrees in Eco-Theology from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, and an MA in Philosophy from the University of Detroit, along with an MA in Depth Psychology from California Institute of Integral Studies. Ian's post demonstrates the level of 'denial' rooted in the human psyche on our contemporary landscape currently. All science is about interpretation and other scientist's dispute the claims Ian makes.

The problem with people like Ian is that they cannot read the signs of the times and prefer psychological denial over truth. He might want to examine his own opinions and beliefs before offering a critique of others opinions including my own.

Bidelo, Gregory The Great, and a few others make the crucial point in all this:

Humanity hasn't much choice except to err on the side of safety, if there's a credible threat to human survial from human activities.

This isn't the same situation as millions of herd-mentality humans believing in pre-Copernican helio-centric 'scientific' errors, centuries ago. Human epistemoligical error, back then, didn't threaten Humanity's survival.

Ian McQueen and others, here, apparently surmise there's no human-caused Global Warming threat, despite an equal(or more)number of scientists who say there is.

In the end, no 'side' will ever know-for sure (in time) for one side to silence all argument by the other side.

So, what do rational people do in such a situation: Risk the potentially disastrous consequences of doing pretty-much nothing, just because we're not absolutely sure of the human-inculpating data?

No on your life: Science isn't based on certainty; it's based on ongoing, slowly-verified assessments of probability.

There's enough credible data, now, that says the human threat-contribution is probably real and that humans MAY be able to abate it; enough to render absurd any doubters' (even doubting scientists') insistence that humans can and need do nothing.

And you don't need to be a scientist to understand the flaws in the doubters' reasoning.

So, even given the seemingly-legitimate debate over the data that demonstrates human-caused Global Warming, a credible survial-threat of this magnitude requires erring on the side of safety, in-the-present.

How humanity meets this challenge, technologically/socially, is another matter. But that we humans ought to take it deadly-seriously, isn't even debatable--except, of course, for irrationally-religious, or suicidal, or politically hypnotized individuals.

Evelyn Smith: Right you are!

The IPCC 4th report, (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) in its FAQs section (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf) shows several graphics.
One of those (page 29) is the rise of the "global" temperature and a thick line with the prediction (better, an "average" of model simulations) that fits the referred line almost precisely. There's also another thick line that predicts what if there was no increase in CO2 (no human forcings), showing a "steady" global temperature.
This last line is MEANINGLESS because we have no way to go back in the past and rewrite history!!
Well, we could have some "faith" in it IF the models showed the temperature predictions prior to 1900, where CO2 levels were "constants", but that isn't showed!!!

Other graphic (page 12) shows an increased slope in temperature variation, inducing people's minds that "now" we are running towards doomsday faster than ever. However if "now" was 1940, the slope 1910/1940 with be the same!! In 10/20 years time this idea would be set to pieces because there would be a major decrease in temperature!!!

I can't give an answer why there has been an average increase in temperature since 1900. I don't belive CO2 had any major influence, and I REFUSE to be brainwashed so easily!!

PS – Please don't forget to check page 33, where the graphs show that, should my skepticism be totally erroneous, we will "burn" any time between 20 to 50 years unless we ALL go to the Stone Age tomorrow. Quioto is meaningless and alternative/renewable energies are too expensive to be widespread as the major energy source. However, some diversification in energy sources is acceptable for security purposes (like a flop in oil production).
And yes, we should save energy (and everything else), so that we can spend the money in other stuff…
The solution to the "global warming problem", should it exists, is EASY. We just have one kid for 3 or 4 generations! I've no idea how to enforce this in Africa, but I can't understand why the politicians don't throw this "solution" in the table.

Ian, it is nice to hear the other side from someone who argues with actual information. From your point of view, it sounds like you feel that opponents of climate change are shut out by political/superficial means. From my point of view, in trying to inform myself, the people who I've encountered who are opponents of climate change are usually trying to avoid any responsiblity for themselves and wind up sounding socially skewed and selfish. Though I don't agree with your viewpoint, I appreciate your attempt to put information out there in a reasonable way.

You don't have to have a degree or be a professional scientist to know that something is badly awry. Look at the ongoing pattern of flooding and drout. We had to abandon our home due to an ongoing pattern of predictable flooding that never existed before. Living in one place long enough, one becomes familiar with the local patterns and rhythms--and one becomes aware when something has shifted. People who work in airconditioned work environments and go from there to an airconditioned car to an airconditioned suburban home are insulated from the natural world. It doesn't mean that the changes aren't manifest even if they aren't apparently directly experienced.

fires, floods, disease..........bring it on. i am responcible for my actions. ive had a fulfilling, yet eyeopening life. i got my singlespeed bike ready. i made the choice to not have children. i love my lover, and he loves me. i am ashamed of what i have done to our planet, but i must have peace. i am tired. in the afterlife, we will be sorted out, and you WILL reap what you sow. be at peace, brothers and sisters, i will see you in the river of our future, and we will live as we would have liked. if you find yourself in this river, let go of the egde..... see who is in there as well!!!! i will be your friend. we will not be alone, we will have each other. better luck next try. i am hopeful.

on a second note........survival to the end is human nature. ill finally get to use my water purifier and my snowshoes and stuff, like they were intended.

I appreciate the fact Al Gore is at least making an attempt, but he's truly just arranging the furniture on the Titanic. The automobile is hands down the leading user of carbon fuel. Carbon fuel is the problem more than the cars. If we use corn for fuel, it's still carbon based and will not alleviate the basic problem of excess green house gases.
What about the electric cars Al? It is an absolutely viable option, cars that can be charged at home in an hour or so and run for hundreds of miles. These technology is available now! It's amazing and yet we keep talking in circles discussing the same old worn out remedies.
Check out www.letsroll911.org if you want to see why we don't stand a chance, as long as the status quo remains and most of America is sleeping, or zoned out on TV, prozac, etc ...
Maybe it's too late, and maybe we don't deserve the freedom we say we have because it's being stripped away, little by little, and we're just watching it happen.
We're no safer, healthier, comfortable or prosperous and yet we keep giving up our freedoms, and giving others control of what is acceptable, and how we should live our lives.
There's nothing you haven't seen before, but watch it again with the time that's passed since you've seen it before. You may see something new ...

When will someone mention the MILITARY and the research done for MILITARY purposes as a major culprit?! Presumably, the environmental destruction attributable to the military is included in what the human experiment has wrought upon the planet.

But I don't think that framing the discussion in the very broad term of 'human' activity, for the average human being, is all that helpful. Every human being is self-centered. When we hear that global warming is a 'human' problem, the first reaction is often to justify our own individual behaviour. The justifications might run something like, "Well, I drive my little Corolla instead of a big SUV and I keep the temperature in my house at 68 degrees in the winter time, etc., etc., etc." We justify how we are 'doing our part' and thus, lessen the guilt of our behaviour.

And the individual behaviour MUST BE MODIFIED. Absolutely. No question.

But let's also identify more clearly the behaviours that are not so easily identified as 'mine.'

To the extent that we pay taxes, we are part of the military organization. And the military organisation and all of the companies that produce items that the military organization consumes are some of the hugest polluters on the planet. Just go to HAARP.net to be horrified.

I agree that the planet can not sustain the human population that acts in the way we currently are acting. But if the human species simply stopped the military and the military consumption of the planet's resources, I do think it'd make a pretty big impact.

Stop fighting each other. Stop the military and everything associated with it.

Naive? Absolutely. Possible? Anything is. Likely? Stay tuned.

Evelyn Smith - I'm not sure what connection your post has to do with the satirical one I posted. You may have me confused with someone else - someone with the screen name "granny." Anyway, I hate prune juice.

But speaking of phyloplankton, when their levels in the ocean drop (which is happening now), among other things, the Gulf Stream slows down and may stop, which would bring very sudden climate change in Europe, N. America, and the whole North Atlantic. It's happened before. I'm sure you know that, but others may not -

The imperial malthusiasts are only capable of spouting right wing garbage. Whoever said that people in the poor third world would be the ones to die is correct; and not only is that extremely wrong, it also won't be effective or stop global warming. The population we have now can be supported by the planet in a sustainable way. But the malthusian viewpoint is not only ignorant because of that fact, but also because an unstabilized world filled with havoc caused by climate disasters has the added threat of nuclear weapons and power plants (etc) just waiting to be accidentally destroyed or to fall into the hands of/be used by who knows what. The chance of a fragment of our species surviving is very, very small. We can become venus, far too easily.

http://www.dreamingearth.net

The problem of global warming began long before all of us were born. It's a problem we inherited from our ancestors. It is delusional and egocentric for us to claim full responsibility for something we had no control over.

It will require draconian measures to arrest global warming. If we don't address it, we will serious suffer consequences. However, if we do take action, there will also be serious consequences. The needed changes will cause massive economic, political and social upheaval. That outcome could be just as bad and have a more immediate onset. This assumes that the technological fixes work as promised.

All of this blogging is psychotherapy for those of us who now realize the seriousness of our predicament. It's unsettling to realize that we are not in control of our destiny, and never have been. This is a bitter pill for Westerners and Christians to swallow; for those who believe that we were given dominion over the planet and that we are consciously in complete control of our minds and future.

Cognitive scientists have long known this is not the case; however,it seems to take monumental problems that are obviously beyond our control to drive the point home.

It's possible that our large brains and social organization haven't really conferred any major long-term survival advantages on us; some evolutionary biologists suggest as much. We have significantly altered the environment in which we evolved so successfully. Now we find that we don't deal so well with long-term threats. It seems we're a bunch of egocentric people with short-timer attitudes, not giving a damn about seemingly distant problems. How ironic, we were smart enough to control predators, manage diseases and multiply in an uncontrolled way, now we're victims of our success. It seems that evolution didn't equip us with any mechanism for recognizing and becoming alarmed at seemingly distant threats.

It seems that ants, bees, birds and other creatures that lack large brains and consciousness and instead rely on collective instinctive intelligence may be better candidates for long-term survival. Maybe we are an evolutionary mistake.

: glide625: "It's a self fixing problem; temperatures rise, people : die, fewer emissions, temperatures moderate."
:
: Excellent, concise point.

You definitely don't understand systems theory. The above is true only for a stable system where the negative feedback exactly cancels out the perturbation.

I think the scientists are telling us that they don't understand the climate system well enough to know whether it is stable enough that it will return to normal levels after some people die and emissions reduce. It could go severely unstable where everybody dies.

Ian L. McQueen - Here's another point-by-point rebuttal for you:

*There is NO scientifically proven linkage between CO2 concentration and temperature.
1. The high correlation between temperature as measured using ice-core analysis and as measured at Mauna Loa observatory is well-documented in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. You could argue that causation is not necessarily implied, that is, CO2 follows temperature and not vice versa. But so what? It still means temperature is rising exponentially.
2. Infrared anaylsis in the laboratory to show that CO2 is a powerful heat reflector has been demonstrated for at least a hundered years.

*Nature puts 35 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as does Man. How does Nature distinguish between molecules?
The amount nature puts out is irrelavant. This is basic equilibrium and steady-state science. The atmospheric carbon cycle ensures that the amount of carbon passed into the atmosphere (for example through animal exhalation) is balanced by the amount of carbon withdrawn from the atmosphere (for example, plant absorption). When carbon that has been stored for millions of years is extracted from the ground, the equilibrium is shifted. This is basic science, it's unbelievable that people can't understand this.

*Readers here are inclined to believe the AGW story. No one ever questions the assertions of the environmental activists. The fact is that there is NO consensus among climatologists. Many believe in AGW and many others do not. No one has taken a survey of beliefs. There is no truth to the assertion that a "vast majority" of scientists believe in AGW. It is an oft-repeated invention of the warmist alarmists.
1. Of 928 peer-reviewed papers addressing global climate change, 75% supported the consensus that anthropogenic climate change was a reality, 25% took no position and zero refuted the consensus (Oreskes, 2004). So your contention that a survey has never been taken is plain wrong.
2. People question environmentalists all the time. You, for one. Industry pays people to question them (some of them have a lot to lose afterall). The Internet is loaded with climate change skeptics.
3. What is the agenda of environmental activists versus, for example, the oil industry? Who has the most money to lose? Common sense tells us whose agenda should be more suspect.

*There is evidence that we are headed into a prolonged period.
I don't know what this means.

*We cannot even trust many of the temperature readings that are being used to support the notion of AGW. Many ground stations are located where they will be heated by asphalt, heat from air conditioners, etc., and their readings are just not reliable.
That's why the Mauna Loa observatory is used: it's geographically isolated and the measuremnts are taken away from man-made heat sources (such as asphalt, air-conditioning).

So it's YOU, McQueen who needs to check the facts, not Al Gore.

I am sure that after the Titanic hit the iceberg the people on the ship began to take icebergs seriously. They came together to discuss options and make plans and take action. About half of them lived. But the people on the Titanic had some lifeboats and could expect help to come from outside. We have no lifeboats. There will be no help coming from outside earth and there is no other place to go. Maybe three billion people will still be on earth thirty years from now. Maybe not.
Some of the people on the Titanic continued playing music and dancing and sipping drinks because...why not?

Granny, you had your prune juice today? I had a quart of it. Did you know prune juice is a great cure for a cold? ___ You don't dare cough.

Okay old gal, here it is. Floating in our ocean's are a tiny form of plant life called phytoplankton. The sunrays interact with the green chlorophyll in the plants and by the chemical process of photosynthesis, oxygen is produced. Those tiny plants, produce [70%] of the oxygen in our atmosphere. Kill off even 20 to 25% of that tiny life form, and we can turn out the lghts and tell our children goodby.

Could any type of man made pollution kill them off? Does a cat lick it's ass,___ is a pig's ass pork,___ do Dzo's poop in the fields ___ is Cheney a bad man? The correct answers for all five questions is, ___ (Yes indeedy.)

How can we dispute Bush's position on global warming when he is guided by devine power?
Gore has only the scientific community and facts to support his views.

Ceecee, I'm 71 years old, so in ten years I will probalby be buried. But in the meantime? Welllll,___ My wife says I'm still good in bed.

BTW that code name I use is confusing, I'm a boy. Once I considered a sex change operation, but the doctor warned me that I wouldn't be able to parelell park my car.___ So,__ I'm still a boy. You have any plans?

Ian Mcqueen (and others) - no need to believe varying opinions. Find out the facts - and I suggest "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery. There are other good sources, but Flannery covers it all and is very readable and well-organized. Also, check out Gore's book "Earth in the Balance" (new edition). Forget "An Inconvenient Truth" - no one here needs a picture book.

A cynical word of cheer??? We really have not got the power to completely destroy the planet. We do have the power to destroy much of the life on the planet (including you-know-who) and probably will. But the planet will go right on orbiting on. And here is where Mother Nature has been wily and wise - she has prudently set up a little rainy-day account and hidden it in the ground. It's her Anaerobic Lifeforms Account and they just HATE oxygen. They do love methane, though, and the first chance they get they will begin to evolve up from the bacteria, molds, fungi, etc. that they're locked into now. Give them a few hundred million years and who knows? They may be blogging about how they're using up all the methane and - what to do? So - you're right, Ian McQueen - life will go on.

Michael Hughes July 19th, 2007 6:47 pm

Sorry for the directness of this reply to you but your insane!

Although Gore carries some unwelcome baggage from his vice presidency, he is a better candidate for the presidency than any who are in the race at the moment. I would hope that he could give a voice to the science that has been drowned out by all the lies and deception that have been perpetrated by the current, dysfunctional, administration.

Evelyn Smith July 19th, 2007 1:50 pm …

Wild animals are not the problem because they eat only sustainable sources of food (except when they scavenge from us) – otherwise they wouldn't be here. Their methane production must have reached some form of steady-state equilibrium with the sinks in the environment.

Farm-fed animals eat mostly food grown with substantial quantities of fertilizer derived from oil, so they feed on unsustainable sources of food. The "Green Revolution" that increased yields of cereal crops by 5 times or more has helped to fuel population growth and with it, the methane and CO2 emissions of animals (especially humans) must have increased by about the same amount.

Until we come to our senses and reduce the human population of this globe to, say, one third of its present level the problems we face will continue to become progressively more intractable. The reduction can be effected in a few generations by ensuring that each family has only one child (as is supposed to be the case in China). Part of China's growing strength is the one-child rule which makes it easier to feed the population. Moreover, the tendency is for each child to be better nurtured and encouraged to reach his or her potential.

In the meantime, I think that we can each reduce our own use of fossil fuels in well-documented ways. One of the major uses is home heating and yet much, or even all, could be supplied from the sun. (Nuclear is ok providing it is 93,000,000 miles away.) Most places in the US average more than 3kwH per day per square meter from the sun and that works out at over 1 Mega Watt Hour per year. Much of the heat needed for a home could be supplied by 20 or 30 square meters of solar heating panels on the roof. There are ways to store heat harvested during the summer so that it is available for the winter … e.g. http://www.dlsc.ca/

So read that again

If industrialized nations cut output 90% and the rest by 50% we may have a prayer so sums up what Gore said!!

Gore just predicted the end of the world since 90% is as impossible as 50%

PAX

For those of you who think we only have 10 years left - or less - what are you doing to spend your remaining time?

If we are the last generation, what should we do for the next 10 years?