Nevertheless, at what point do we move forward with policy? Over 900 studies say more-or-less the same thing. At some point do we have to decide on measures to remediate the trend, such as reduction in C02 emissions, and/or responses to effects, such as population relocation and land reclamation?
I've read a fair bit on both sides of this debate and for me the whole point is not whether there is some increase in temperature or not. The questions really seems to be whether this change is NATURAL or MAN MADE.
And to be honest there seem an equal number of people (supposed experts) on both sides saying it's one or the other.
So which is it? Man or nature? Seems to me the answer comes down to your personal world view.
It's irrelevant, we still need to do something. For instance, even if our CO2 emissions aren't the cause, lowering them could cushion the blow. However, I don't think there are two, evenly divided camps in the scientific community, not even close. The division is in the political sphere, where those who are ideologically opposed to government action on anything are attempting to deny reality in order to thwart the actions of people who want to take quick action in order to avoid having to relocate 500,000,000 people who live in river deltas and lowlands or fight tropical diseases in places like NYC, LA and DFW.
That is the debate now, but for years people claiming to be independent scientists have been saying that global warming isn't happenning at all. Just recently, it has come out that energy companies were secretly funding these so-called independent scientists. It was a fraud all along, and the fraud continues.
That isn't to say that everything has been figured out yet, just that one side is trying to discover the facts, while the other is protecting their turf.
We definitley need some new and better energy policies .. that would help our economy get off fossil fuels reduce some of the pollution in our water and air.
The CO2 emmisons are not helping the planet ... to what affect ... to the signifiganct decimal point ??? NO models are accurate enough to decipher that.
I do take offense to politicians that want to do something and it will only be advantageous to thier own political needs .. elect me .. I care about the envirnment .. I will put factories out of business in the US and make them go to some other country so they can pollute there (CHINA , S America, Mexico),.. and with the added benefit of losing jobs for US citizens. We need an energy policy that makes sense for the US .. and these lousy self serving poilticans are not the ones that will likely do anything positive about it.
I remember while running for VP, Dick Cheney, sneering like a Sith Lord who had aged badly after shooting lightning bolts from his fingertips, saying that Clinton had been in office for 8 years without ever getting around to formulating an energy policy (which was true enough).
The irony here is that Bush and Cheney have been in office for 7 now and haven't gotten around to it either.
I am beginning to think that invading Iraq WAS their energy policy, but that would be just crazy, wouldn't it?
That's why we need international accords. That way, nobody is left at a great disadvantage. If someone does deviate, then we slap international trade sanctions on them.
"This assault betrays what's at the heart of the global warming agenda - a cadre of control freaks who can't respond to the overwhelming evidence that the Sun is responsible for climate change and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks to sway the public."
I clicked the 'overwhelming evidence' link, and found that:
"Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact."
Wow! Overwhelming!
I don't agree that they should be compared to Holocaust deniers, but come on. You can bury your head in the sand and say "good luck" to your kids and grandkids, or you can do something. Like MacThulhu said, even if we aren't the main cause, doing something about it will still cushion the blow.
"Global Warming" is not a science, it is a religion. Religions give rise to inquisitions. That is what is going on now. People who deny the central points of the religion must be found and muzzled.
"Global Warming" scientists know that this is the best thing that has ever happened to them. Governments have spent over 80 billion dollars on global warming "research". Them must keep everyone in line or they might lose these billions.
Meanwhile, Al Gore have made tens of millions of dollars from his movie and book and thinks he can ride this hobby horse to the White House.
We are all doomed. But doomsday is being brought to you by the global warming religious zealots.
Oh, by the way, they will never take me alive.
This article is misleading, though. The quote didn't say that people who deny global warming being man made can be compared to holocaust deniers: they're saying people who deny global warming, period, can be compared to holocaust deniers. Big difference.
There is overwhelming evidence that global warming is occurring. Whether it is man-made or natural is debatable - I do find it interesting that those that insist it isn't from the affects of man are pretty much the same people who were absolutely denying the existence of global warming 10+ years ago. I say let's not worry about the things we can't control, let's worry about the things we can.
I remember in the '70s (yes, I'm that old) when big corps rallied against the Clean Air Act. We had a paper mill in our town that generously left our skyline in a gray haze. One literally had to drive 20 miles out of town to see a star at night. When the change was forced, the effects were damn near immediate. Clear skies again only a couple of years later... and we could actually breathe again.
My father was on the board of directors at that mill (and stayed there for another 20 years) and he was the only one that supported the change (that I know of).
If it is religion, it is pretty impressive, melting all those glaciers and so on.
That's the power of prayer!
There are several problems with your arguments. For instance: These scientists would be working on something else if they weren't working on global warming studies. There is more to the world of climatology than global warming, more than enough to guarantee employment for people willing to learn the math, so they are certainly not dependent on an imaginary crisis for funding.
Problem with climatology is that they still really don't know how everything works and are claiming the sky is falling, but the sun has become warmer and the earth is in a more circular orbit around the sun, which means a more even heating; moving the earth a few miles might help....
I agree that reducing emissions ain't going hurt and might even help, but until we know more: don't cry wolf.
You are forgetting that the oil companies have been paying people for years to say that there is no wolf and the truth is closer to there being a wolf than not.
And the other side has been trying to use this material to push their commie ideals as well.
The *western* oil companies should be sued and destroyed, just like the cigarette companies, for producing false studies and false information (hint, hint). Both organizations support Reqpublicans by the way.
Big_T
I find it interesting that there are so many 'experts' now on global warming .. and most of them couldn't tell you what a Hadley Cell was or the signifigance of upwelling in climatolgy. There have been many global warming events in earth's history.
Man in his egocentric viewpoint thinks that he is the cause and and the answer to the world's problems. Mankind can't even feed all the people or make peace with himself and he wants to tame mother nature ... get a clue .. the polticans aren't going to save you .. all though they will throw you a life preserver if you graciously elect them and honor and respect them and give them power.