We may have crossed the tipping point already. Regardless, we all should be reducing our footprints. Most reject any change to a simpler lifestyle. I embrace it as it brings me closer to Nature.

Brian Brademeyer December 20th, 2009 5:18 pm -- Alley's lecture requires more scientific sophistication than I have, at least to absorb his reasoning in one sitting. But I keep wondering why we have to look at ice cores and other kinds of cores, and speculate about how much warming results from changes in the earth's orientation toward the sun and how much from CO2, when a simple experiment could be done in which identical contiguous greenhouses could be built, one to be filled with CO2 and the other without it, and the effects of solar radiation observed and measured directly. Wouldn't that settle the matter?

Additionally, I remain in the skeptic camp with respect to the claims that, unless we humans put a stop to GHG increases, the earth faces catastrophe by twenty, fifty, or a hundred years from now (the sooner the predicted catastrophe, the more my skepticism). GHG's clearly are continuing to increase in the atmosphere notwithstanding the recent apparent slow-down in instrument-read temperature rise and melting of sea ice. Won't the increased study of this subject provide compelling, and relatively easy to understand, empirical evidence within a very few years about whether a failure to somehow reverse the amount of GHG's in the atmosphere will lead us into catastrophe, and how soon? [This comment was edited.]

Yeah, as far as i can recall, Counterpunch had no or very little coverage of Copenhagen. I also note that a couple of its regular writers are paleo- conservatives, many of whom view the UN as some kind of spearhead in a New World Order facilitated by global warming policies--you know like they're going to tax not only carbon emissions but the air we breathe. etc.

Over the past 5 years a 20% decline in those americans believing in the global warming may be accountable to the movements like the above, and their natural corporate allies.

I wouldn't have believe it had I not seen it with my own eyes. And to think that I had considered supporting the website.

All you need to read is the initial 'conspiracy theory' that corporate interests, chiefly nuclear, are propagandizing for the carbon global warming movement.

Any thought that the corporate muscle behind nuclear power is using global warming as it's vehicle in the way he implies is insane. Traditional and entrenched corporate interests are by majority, firmly on the fossil fuel bandwagon. Yes, there may be some backing of nuclear energy options for a small handful of rich buddies in the nuke business, but thats small fries compared to what is invested in fossil fuels and he knows that. Numbers don't lie, all you have to do is compare dollars from big oil and gas etc to nuclear...no contest. Follow the money, thats all you ever have to do.

Then he jumps even further into ignoramusville by implying that these same interests are powerful and influential enough to sway almost the entire scientific community into supporting them.

Soon he will be stumping for Jesse Ventura.

Ya know pjd412, i completely agree with you about your critique of Cockburn. It's incredibly frustrating. I worked in paleoceanography for five years. I specifically did research on sea surface water temperatures, in direct relation to atmospheric temperatures over the past million years. Most in the field recognize anthropogenic warming as a serious issue.

I find it ironic that you look towards the science here, but refuse to look at the science behind the 911 issue. I've given you the highest quality of research there in another post, yet you sound like Cockburn when it comes to 911.

But, I do agree that the issue of climate change is far more serious. I look to Murray Bookchin's work on ecology and anarchism for hope in future movements. But unless we can all have an open mind about all the data, we only see a small portion of the clues for a free future.

I am deeply skeptical about global warming as a serious phenomenon - not least because of all that has been revealed in recent months, but also because the Earth has to be pretty damn stable to have survived as long as it has - and no, I don't mean 6000 years! Life on Earth has survived vast volcanic eruptions in India, and several impacts with asteroids. All will have produced vast quantities of CO2 (the latter because of the huge fires it initiated over large parts of the globe).

People say, "yes but physics tells us that CO2 absorbs infrared". Yes, of course it does, but it is one of a number of greenhouse gasses, and if the situation were really that clear, there would be no need for fancy computer models to demonstrate the effect.

I am tired of hearing that all scientists agree about global warming. Most, obviously express no expert opinion because they are not climatologists. Of those that do class themselves as climatologists, it is remarkable how many of them seem to have no relevant qualifications, for example Rajendra Pachauri himself is an expert in railway engineering! Even the UK's David Kink is an expert in surface chemistry.

Someone made the comment about Copenhagen that it was typical of politicians. Faced will lots of serious problems that need fixing, they all gather in great luxury to debate an imaginary one!

kayaker December 20th, 2009 9:00 pm

"Anyone who wishes to help stop global warming should turn off their computers right NOW!"

After you.

I understand Iceland is in the market for those massive servers. Power there has no carbon footprint, since sitting on diverging tectonic plates gives them more geothermal energy than they can use.

Meanwhile power requirements go down with every computer generation.

And stop farting too! Methane is a greenhouse gas.

Glug...