The sources are quoted..the scientists and the institutions are mentioned there.

Frankly, I do not trust the quoted sources.

I have seen too many unsupported claims, simulations with wildly skewed underlying assumptions, data sets with "inconvient" data removed to tailor the analysis result, etc. I have seen too many scientists making unsupported claims to support their idiology.

So no, Es, I will not accept a quoted source. Caveat emptor is the order of the day and I have become very wary.

I wish to see and analyze the data myself and until I can claims made are simply unsupported anecdotes.

The sources are quoted..the scientists and the institutions are mentioned there.

Frankly, I do not trust the quoted sources.

I have seen too many unsupported claims, simulations with wildly skewed underlying assumptions, data sets with "inconvient" data removed to tailor the analysis result, etc. I have seen too many scientists making unsupported claims to support their idiology.

So no, Es, I will not accept a quoted source. Caveat emptor is the order of the day and I have become very wary.

I wish to see and analyze the data myself and until I can claims made are simply unsupported anecdotes.

Anecdotes? I hope you are not deliberately being insulting.

Well, please feel free to look into the research yourself. I've given you a list of the published papers. I look forward to you getting back to me and seeing if it measures up to your scrutiny.

---

Reality Internet Personality

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

I think you can find a lot of raw data there and also some reports.

First results - www.climateprediction.net

Quite interesting results there. Even if the model is probably not that detailed it shows the problems in creating reliable climate models and how small diversities could result in extreme outcomes. The situation we are in might be the one of two scientists at the end of a tailback discussing controversely if or if not the truck approaching them will manage to stop in time. Once reliable results are availiable it might be too late already...

Another problem is statistical data and it's use in general. Even if you'd find out that the warming of the last decades would be 80 percent based on sun spot activity the additional 20 percent might be enough to set a vicious circle into effect which would result in extreme results and death of millions. Some scientists might still argue that since 80 percent warming would be nature made we don't need to reduce greenhouse gas while in fact a greenhouse gas reduction would be especially in such a situation neccessary to make sure we don't reach a point of no return.

I'd wish more economists would focus to make studies how to implement more enviroment protection and reneweable energy in a way that would create in fact more jobs and those news would be spread since people are frightened to loose their jobs (many will loose them anyways due to rationalization - it's therefore so important to find new ways to ensure employment).

---

Thanks, Martin - I am actually enjoying son@home instead of seti@home, hehe.

---
@all
Happy new year (In advance)

-Mark

Taken from http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

"
THE DENIAL MACHINE
In the past few years, a hurricane has engulfed the debate about global warming. This scientific issue has become a rhetorical firestorm with science pitted against spin and inflammatory words on both sides.



Some scientists believe that global warming will not be devastating to the planet. How could scientific fact, which many believe could determine the very future of the planet, become a political battleground, pitting left versus right, environmentalist versus climate change sceptic?

Global warming: potential costs?
A recent British report estimates that the projected costs of global warming to be as costly as both world wars and the Great Depression added together. Yet, with such consequences, some scientists still insist that climate change, if it is happening at all, could be a good thing.

The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate the science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of a group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for for Big Tobacco, and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil companies.

Who is keeping the debate of global warming alive?
The documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies.

The Denial Machine also explores how the arguments supported by oil companies were adopted by policy makers in both Canada and the U.S. and helped form government policy.

NOTE TO READERS:

This story included a segment of an interview with Jim Hoggan, who subsequently realized he had incorrectly characterized a letter sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He quickly corrected the error through his website, DeSmogBlog, as follows:

In a TV interview that aired last week on a CBC fifth estate climate change documentary called The Denial Machine, I made a reference to a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper that denied the science behind climate change and urged the government to back away from any related regulation. In this reference, I said: "We looked into the folks who were on that, and all but 19 were Americans and many of them are kind of infamous characters from the states who worked for the tobacco industry."

That was incorrect. I should have said that only 19 of the signatories were Canadian, and that some are kind of infamous characters from the states who worked for the tobacco industry. I regret the error and apologize unreservedly to all those who may have taken offence from this mistake.

(A footnote: a few days after Prime Minister Harper received that letter, he had another, from 90 of Canada's most senior climate scientists and oceanographers. This second letter cited "an increasing urgency to act on the threat of climate change", and called upon the government to develop a national policy on climate change and strategies to adapt to what it said was "the inevitable changes that will affect us all".)
"

---

The sources are quoted..the scientists and the institutions are mentioned there.

Frankly, I do not trust the quoted sources.

I have seen too many unsupported claims, simulations with wildly skewed underlying assumptions, data sets with "inconvient" data removed to tailor the analysis result, etc. I have seen too many scientists making unsupported claims to support their idiology.

So no, Es, I will not accept a quoted source. Caveat emptor is the order of the day and I have become very wary.

I wish to see and analyze the data myself and until I can claims made are simply unsupported anecdotes.

Anecdotes? I hope you are not deliberately being insulting.

Well, please feel free to look into the research yourself. I've given you a list of the published papers. I look forward to you getting back to me and seeing if it measures up to your scrutiny.

Es, I have never denied that the global climate is changing. My dispute is with claims that mankind is responsible for any but the most insignificant part of this change. I have been able to find no conclusive or even fairly convincing evidence in the science that I have reviewed. I had seen most of what you pointed me at and am in the process of reviewing that which I have not seen.

It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

Es, I have never denied that the global climate is changing. My dispute is with claims that mankind is responsible for any but the most insignificant part of this change. I have been able to find no conclusive or even fairly convincing evidence in the science that I have reviewed. I had seen most of what you pointed me at and am in the process of reviewing that which I have not seen.

It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

BillHyland, this is a understandeable opinion, but I doubt we are able to find out exact numbers in the near future. Still I guess there is meanwhile quite some convinving evidence that at least some of the change is due to the increased greenhouse gas production - and it might be what gets us to the point of no return where vicious circles cause drastical changes we might - even with all effort - not be able to influence or control.

Better safe then sorry - implemented well thought out, reneweable energy and enviroment protection can be a job motor while improving our life quality.

Time to address the polar bear decline

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

December 30, 2006

At first glance, the Bush administration's announcement this week that it is listing the polar bear as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act appears a good thing and, for the most part, it is. A listing of “threatened” means the polar bear population is not immediately facing extinction. If that were so, the bears would be listed as “endangered.”

After much resistance, despite growing scientific consensus, the White House is again acknowledging the global warming threat. At this point, this is a safe political move.

The polar bear population, believed to be between 20,000 and 25,000 in five countries, has been shrinking. The population of one widely studied group – there are 19 in all – is said to have suffered a 22 percent decline. The bear populations in Alaska are reportedly doing much better.

In announcing the listing earlier this week, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said the polar bear population was steadily declining because of the rapid thinning of Arctic sea ice. The bears use the ice as a platform to travel and to hunt seals. When the ice disappears, the bears are stuck on land where they have trouble finding food. They lose weight, and their cubs' survival rate declines.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration acted only after a federal court ordered it to do so. The Interior Department was given until this week to make a determination on listing.

Still, the listing has been made, and the Interior Department's U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now have a year to decide what should be done. Kempthorne made a point this week that it is beyond the scope of the Endangered Species Act to address global warming. But the polar bear population decline won't be slowed without directly addressing global warming.

---

me@rescam.org

Time to address the polar bear decline

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

December 30, 2006

At first glance, the Bush administration's announcement this week that it is listing the polar bear as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act appears a good thing and, for the most part, it is. A listing of “threatened” means the polar bear population is not immediately facing extinction. If that were so, the bears would be listed as “endangered.”

After much resistance, despite growing scientific consensus, the White House is again acknowledging the global warming threat. At this point, this is a safe political move.

The polar bear population, believed to be between 20,000 and 25,000 in five countries, has been shrinking. The population of one widely studied group – there are 19 in all – is said to have suffered a 22 percent decline. The bear populations in Alaska are reportedly doing much better.

In announcing the listing earlier this week, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said the polar bear population was steadily declining because of the rapid thinning of Arctic sea ice. The bears use the ice as a platform to travel and to hunt seals. When the ice disappears, the bears are stuck on land where they have trouble finding food. They lose weight, and their cubs' survival rate declines.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration acted only after a federal court ordered it to do so. The Interior Department was given until this week to make a determination on listing.

Still, the listing has been made, and the Interior Department's U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now have a year to decide what should be done. Kempthorne made a point this week that it is beyond the scope of the Endangered Species Act to address global warming. But the polar bear population decline won't be slowed without directly addressing global warming.

There seems to be some controversy with this one too. Here is a link to an article that appears to dispute the ruling.Polar bear worries unproven, expert says
I have also heard unsubstantiated stastics that while some polar bear populations are declining, they are still larger that 30 years ago. I am looking into this.

Time to address the polar bear decline

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

December 30, 2006

At first glance, the Bush administration's announcement this week that it is listing the polar bear as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act appears a good thing and, for the most part, it is. A listing of “threatened” means the polar bear population is not immediately facing extinction. If that were so, the bears would be listed as “endangered.”

After much resistance, despite growing scientific consensus, the White House is again acknowledging the global warming threat. At this point, this is a safe political move.

The polar bear population, believed to be between 20,000 and 25,000 in five countries, has been shrinking. The population of one widely studied group – there are 19 in all – is said to have suffered a 22 percent decline. The bear populations in Alaska are reportedly doing much better.

In announcing the listing earlier this week, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said the polar bear population was steadily declining because of the rapid thinning of Arctic sea ice. The bears use the ice as a platform to travel and to hunt seals. When the ice disappears, the bears are stuck on land where they have trouble finding food. They lose weight, and their cubs' survival rate declines.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration acted only after a federal court ordered it to do so. The Interior Department was given until this week to make a determination on listing.

Still, the listing has been made, and the Interior Department's U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now have a year to decide what should be done. Kempthorne made a point this week that it is beyond the scope of the Endangered Species Act to address global warming. But the polar bear population decline won't be slowed without directly addressing global warming.

There seems to be some controversy with this one too. Here is a link to an article that appears to dispute the ruling.Polar bear worries unproven, expert says
I have also heard unsubstantiated stastics that while some polar bear populations are declining, they are still larger that 30 years ago. I am looking into this.

Well you'd have to take it from a lot longer time line that from 30 years ago. 30 years ago the fur trade etc was still strong and a lot of animals were on the verge of extinction from hunting.

The factors that really matter now are...are the numbers of polar bears now sustainable, and how quickly are they declining?

---

Reality Internet Personality

"
WASHINGTON (AP) — ExxonMobil gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.
The report by the science-based non-profit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

READ THE REPORT: Union of Concerned Scientists lets you peruse findings

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

ExxonMobil lists on its website nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.

Alden Mayer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.

Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming.

"

---

Ski the rocky slopes of Switzerland this winter, it's January and no appreciable snow yet...hmmm. Spring is in the air...

---

Account frozen...

Ski the rocky slopes of Switzerland this winter, it's January and no appreciable snow yet...hmmm. Spring is in the air...

There are indications that a good volume of snow is beginning to arrive in Switzerland. The problem at the moment is the high winds that are keeping the lifts closed, not lack of powder snow. I think winter might be arriving.

---

flaming balloons

The sources are quoted..the scientists and the institutions are mentioned there.

Frankly, I do not trust the quoted sources.

I have seen too many unsupported claims, simulations with wildly skewed underlying assumptions, data sets with "inconvient" data removed to tailor the analysis result, etc. I have seen too many scientists making unsupported claims to support their idiology.

So no, Es, I will not accept a quoted source. Caveat emptor is the order of the day and I have become very wary.

I wish to see and analyze the data myself and until I can claims made are simply unsupported anecdotes.

Anecdotes? I hope you are not deliberately being insulting.

Well, please feel free to look into the research yourself. I've given you a list of the published papers. I look forward to you getting back to me and seeing if it measures up to your scrutiny.

Es, I have never denied that the global climate is changing. My dispute is with claims that mankind is responsible for any but the most insignificant part of this change. I have been able to find no conclusive or even fairly convincing evidence in the science that I have reviewed. I had seen most of what you pointed me at and am in the process of reviewing that which I have not seen.

It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

It is everyones right to put their head in the sand when it comes it this issue. For people who do this, all I can say to them is.....we can't go spewing stuff into the atmosphere for over 100 years without something going wrong. We've seen already what happens when we spew stuff into waterways, it just takes longer to see an apparent change with the atmosphere as it is soo much bigger. Carbon dioxide is at levels that the earth has not seen in over 600,000 years! With it increasing significantly above a rolling average in the past century. Surely you can't sit there and tell me that we can spew stuff into the atmosphere at increasing amounts with no adverse reactions taking place!

Aside from that, in Australia, the hottest 10 years on record have all occurred in the last 15 years. Areas of Australia have been in sustained drought now for 5 years. The city of Melbourne which had a dam built to make it drought proof is now in stage 3 water restrictions with overall water storages at 38% and falling at approx 1% per week. There is no long term forecast rains sufficient to increase storages to the point of easing water restrictions. Some parts of the state of Victoria have no water in their dams and all water has to be trucked in. The longest river in Australia, the Murray River, has been estimated to stop flowing for the first time ever this summer. We are seeing leaf drop on trees, due to stress, that makes the place look like autumn and it's only part way into summer. I have never seen this. On Christmas day Melbourne had it's coldest maximum temperature for a Christmas day ever recorded. Two weeks prior to that we had 40C!

Globally we are seeing weather extremes (which is a manifestation of global warming). This means that places that use to get their rain over periods of time now get it in large downpours. Therefore overall the average rainfall for an area may not change, it just comes all at once and doesn't get the chance to soak in causing increased flooding. We are seeing hurricanes/cyclones forming earlier every year and getting more intense. We are seeing spring come earlier and earlier every year.

The ad hoc evidence should really be enough for people to start altering their behaviour now!

I could go on and on...but I have work to do and someone to interview for a job.

Live long and BOINC.

---

Paul
(S@H1 8888)
And proud of it!

The sources are quoted..the scientists and the institutions are mentioned there.

Frankly, I do not trust the quoted sources.

I have seen too many unsupported claims, simulations with wildly skewed underlying assumptions, data sets with "inconvient" data removed to tailor the analysis result, etc. I have seen too many scientists making unsupported claims to support their idiology.

So no, Es, I will not accept a quoted source. Caveat emptor is the order of the day and I have become very wary.

I wish to see and analyze the data myself and until I can claims made are simply unsupported anecdotes.

Anecdotes? I hope you are not deliberately being insulting.

Well, please feel free to look into the research yourself. I've given you a list of the published papers. I look forward to you getting back to me and seeing if it measures up to your scrutiny.

Es, I have never denied that the global climate is changing. My dispute is with claims that mankind is responsible for any but the most insignificant part of this change. I have been able to find no conclusive or even fairly convincing evidence in the science that I have reviewed. I had seen most of what you pointed me at and am in the process of reviewing that which I have not seen.

It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

It is everyones right to put their head in the sand when it comes it this issue. For people who do this, all I can say to them is.....we can't go spewing stuff into the atmosphere for over 100 years without something going wrong. We've seen already what happens when we spew stuff into waterways, it just takes longer to see an apparent change with the atmosphere as it is soo much bigger. Carbon dioxide is at levels that the earth has not seen in over 600,000 years! With it increasing significantly above a rolling average in the past century. Surely you can't sit there and tell me that we can spew stuff into the atmosphere at increasing amounts with no adverse reactions taking place!

Aside from that, in Australia, the hottest 10 years on record have all occurred in the last 15 years. Areas of Australia have been in sustained drought now for 5 years. The city of Melbourne which had a dam built to make it drought proof is now in stage 3 water restrictions with overall water storages at 38% and falling at approx 1% per week. There is no long term forecast rains sufficient to increase storages to the point of easing water restrictions. Some parts of the state of Victoria have no water in their dams and all water has to be trucked in. The longest river in Australia, the Murray River, has been estimated to stop flowing for the first time ever this summer. We are seeing leaf drop on trees, due to stress, that makes the place look like autumn and it's only part way into summer. I have never seen this. On Christmas day Melbourne had it's coldest maximum temperature for a Christmas day ever recorded. Two weeks prior to that we had 40C!

Globally we are seeing weather extremes (which is a manifestation of global warming). This means that places that use to get their rain over periods of time now get it in large downpours. Therefore overall the average rainfall for an area may not change, it just comes all at once and doesn't get the chance to soak in causing increased flooding. We are seeing hurricanes/cyclones forming earlier every year and getting more intense. We are seeing spring come earlier and earlier every year.

The ad hoc evidence should really be enough for people to start altering their behaviour now!

I could go on and on...but I have work to do and someone to interview for a job.

Live long and BOINC.

Let me reiterate:
It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

I do not dispute your evidence of climate change or the necessity to address the effects of same. I dispute your assertion that mankind has had any other than a miniscule effect.

[Let me reiterate:
It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

I do not dispute your evidence of climate change or the necessity to address the effects of same. I dispute your assertion that mankind has had any other than a miniscule effect.

A statement supported by ExxonMobil and their lobby but not to the overwhelming majority of the scientific world, go figure ;)

---

The sources are quoted..the scientists and the institutions are mentioned there.

Frankly, I do not trust the quoted sources.

I have seen too many unsupported claims, simulations with wildly skewed underlying assumptions, data sets with "inconvient" data removed to tailor the analysis result, etc. I have seen too many scientists making unsupported claims to support their idiology.

So no, Es, I will not accept a quoted source. Caveat emptor is the order of the day and I have become very wary.

I wish to see and analyze the data myself and until I can claims made are simply unsupported anecdotes.

Anecdotes? I hope you are not deliberately being insulting.

Well, please feel free to look into the research yourself. I've given you a list of the published papers. I look forward to you getting back to me and seeing if it measures up to your scrutiny.

Es, I have never denied that the global climate is changing. My dispute is with claims that mankind is responsible for any but the most insignificant part of this change. I have been able to find no conclusive or even fairly convincing evidence in the science that I have reviewed. I had seen most of what you pointed me at and am in the process of reviewing that which I have not seen.

It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

It is everyones right to put their head in the sand when it comes it this issue. For people who do this, all I can say to them is.....we can't go spewing stuff into the atmosphere for over 100 years without something going wrong. We've seen already what happens when we spew stuff into waterways, it just takes longer to see an apparent change with the atmosphere as it is soo much bigger. Carbon dioxide is at levels that the earth has not seen in over 600,000 years! With it increasing significantly above a rolling average in the past century. Surely you can't sit there and tell me that we can spew stuff into the atmosphere at increasing amounts with no adverse reactions taking place!

Aside from that, in Australia, the hottest 10 years on record have all occurred in the last 15 years. Areas of Australia have been in sustained drought now for 5 years. The city of Melbourne which had a dam built to make it drought proof is now in stage 3 water restrictions with overall water storages at 38% and falling at approx 1% per week. There is no long term forecast rains sufficient to increase storages to the point of easing water restrictions. Some parts of the state of Victoria have no water in their dams and all water has to be trucked in. The longest river in Australia, the Murray River, has been estimated to stop flowing for the first time ever this summer. We are seeing leaf drop on trees, due to stress, that makes the place look like autumn and it's only part way into summer. I have never seen this. On Christmas day Melbourne had it's coldest maximum temperature for a Christmas day ever recorded. Two weeks prior to that we had 40C!

Globally we are seeing weather extremes (which is a manifestation of global warming). This means that places that use to get their rain over periods of time now get it in large downpours. Therefore overall the average rainfall for an area may not change, it just comes all at once and doesn't get the chance to soak in causing increased flooding. We are seeing hurricanes/cyclones forming earlier every year and getting more intense. We are seeing spring come earlier and earlier every year.

The ad hoc evidence should really be enough for people to start altering their behaviour now!

I could go on and on...but I have work to do and someone to interview for a job.

Live long and BOINC.

Let me reiterate:
It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

I do not dispute your evidence of climate change or the necessity to address the effects of same. I dispute your assertion that mankind has had any other than a miniscule effect.

And I re-iterate

"It is everyones right to put their head in the sand when it comes it this issue. For people who do this, all I can say to them is.....we can't go spewing stuff into the atmosphere for over 100 years without something going wrong. We've seen already what happens when we spew stuff into waterways, it just takes longer to see an apparent change with the atmosphere as it is soo much bigger. Carbon dioxide is at levels that the earth has not seen in over 600,000 years! With it increasing significantly above a rolling average in the past century. Surely you can't sit there and tell me that we can spew stuff into the atmosphere at increasing amounts with no adverse reactions taking place!"

Evidence is also that the CO2 levels have only been increasing since the industrial age began and that there has been no instantaneous peak when there has been volcanic activity.

Read this article and tell me that there ain't going to be some sort of problem if we keep this up!

Let me reiterate:
It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

I do not dispute your evidence of climate change or the necessity to address the effects of same. I dispute your assertion that mankind has had any other than a miniscule effect.

And I re-iterate

"It is everyones right to put their head in the sand when it comes it this issue. For people who do this, all I can say to them is.....we can't go spewing stuff into the atmosphere for over 100 years without something going wrong. We've seen already what happens when we spew stuff into waterways, it just takes longer to see an apparent change with the atmosphere as it is so much bigger. Carbon dioxide is at levels that the earth has not seen in over 600,000 years! With it increasing significantly above a rolling average in the past century. Surely you can't sit there and tell me that we can spew stuff into the atmosphere at increasing amounts with no adverse reactions taking place!"

Evidence is also that the CO2 levels have only been increasing since the industrial age began and that there has been no instantaneous peak when there has been volcanic activity.

Read this article and tell me that there ain't going to be some sort of problem if we keep this up!

You are quoting CO2 as if it were the only reason for Climate Change. Scientists often disagree or change their their minds. Just because they write something to get published does not mean it is true, and it does not mean that it may become a view discredited when other evidence comes along.

What about El Nino? What about use of aerosols that cause cooling? What about solar activity? What about the Earth's wobbling orbit that causes it to change distance from the Sun? What about all that dust and debris in the 'vacuum' between the Earth and the Sun that may or may not block the Suns rays? There are so many other factors to consider than a bit of CO2 that man has released by burning a relatively small amount of matter on this planet. Man's activity in relation to the force of nature is still not understood properly - has this been factored in?

---

flaming balloons

Let me reiterate:
It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

I do not dispute your evidence of climate change or the necessity to address the effects of same. I dispute your assertion that mankind has had any other than a miniscule effect.

And I re-iterate

"It is everyones right to put their head in the sand when it comes it this issue. For people who do this, all I can say to them is.....we can't go spewing stuff into the atmosphere for over 100 years without something going wrong. We've seen already what happens when we spew stuff into waterways, it just takes longer to see an apparent change with the atmosphere as it is so much bigger. Carbon dioxide is at levels that the earth has not seen in over 600,000 years! With it increasing significantly above a rolling average in the past century. Surely you can't sit there and tell me that we can spew stuff into the atmosphere at increasing amounts with no adverse reactions taking place!"

Evidence is also that the CO2 levels have only been increasing since the industrial age began and that there has been no instantaneous peak when there has been volcanic activity.

Read this article and tell me that there ain't going to be some sort of problem if we keep this up!

You are quoting CO2 as if it were the only reason for Climate Change. Scientists often disagree or change their their minds. Just because they write something to get published does not mean it is true, and it does not mean that it may become a view discredited when other evidence comes along.

What about El Nino? What about use of aerosols that cause cooling? What about solar activity? What about the Earth's wobbling orbit that causes it to change distance from the Sun? What about all that dust and debris in the 'vacuum' between the Earth and the Sun that may or may not block the Suns rays? There are so many other factors to consider than a bit of CO2 that man has released by burning a relatively small amount of matter on this planet. Man's activity in relation to the force of nature is still not understood properly - has this been factored in?

"It is everyones right to put their head in the sand when it comes it this issue. For people who do this, all I can say to them is.....we can't go spewing stuff into the atmosphere for over 100 years without something going wrong. We've seen already what happens when we spew stuff into waterways, it just takes longer to see an apparent change with the atmosphere as it is so much bigger. Carbon dioxide is at levels that the earth has not seen in over 600,000 years! With it increasing significantly above a rolling average in the past century. Surely you can't sit there and tell me that we can spew stuff into the atmosphere at increasing amounts with no adverse reactions taking place!"

Sure you can go and latch onto something else to try and argue against the facts.

The facts are shown in the 2 graphs I showed below and this one



I think I can see a correlation...can't you?

Sure you can go and latch onto something else to try and argue against the facts.

The facts are shown in the 2 graphs I showed below and this one



I think I can see a correlation...can't you?

Once again, the chart shows changes that are well within the boundries of established planetary climate cycles.

Sure you can go and latch onto something else to try and argue against the facts.

The facts are shown in the 2 graphs I showed below and this one



I think I can see a correlation...can't you?

Once again, the chart shows changes that are well within the boundries of established planetary climate cycles.

Not at this point in the planetary climate cycles.

It is proven that there have been no sustained volcanic activity that could cause the increase in CO2 levels that are being measured.

At no time in the earths recent history (let's say last 600k yrs) has the CO2 level been so high. In fact the natural CO2 levels should have peaked around now at maximum of 300ppm. What we are seeing is levels at 380ppm with a rate of increase that is accelerating. Forecast CO2 levels for 40 yrs time are estimated to be in excess of 450ppm, a level way outside any planetary cycle.

The planetary cycle should be going into a mini ice age (as shown by the start of the temperature graph) and yet the worlds average temperature is increasing. Using the average temperature though is misleading. What will happen is that some places will have large increase in temperature, others will remain fairly unchanged and a few will decrease a little. Overall though the coldest places on earth WILL increase by significant amounts, upwards of 5C to 10C by 2050 (yes in our life time). Due to this the Arctic ice cap will completely disappear and the Antarctic ice shelves will shear off leaving only land masses with significantly reduced ice levels. Greenland will also loose a significant amount of ice coverage. Why should we care you ask....the increase in ocean heights due to this alone will be in the order of 5 to 15 metres (15ft to 60ft). Enough to cover large portions on Manhatten Island, completely submerging some island countries and displacing over 300 million people across many nations. The increase in water weight over various earthquake prone areas will trigger earthquakes.

As we know, when something heats up it expands. This occurs for the oceans as well. It is estimated that due to the increase in ocean temperatures the increase in water levels due to the heat expansion affect alone will add a further 5 metres in height, displacing even more people.

Overall, due to increase in ocean levels, some of the worlds most productive land masses will be submerged leading to shortages of food.

Overall we can't go spewing stuff into the atmosphere for over 100 years without something going wrong. Surely you can't sit there and tell me that we can spew stuff into the atmosphere at increasing amounts with no adverse reactions taking place!

Come on tell me in your heart of hearts. Should we continue to let CO2 emissions continue at increasing rates and hope nothing will go wrong.

What happens if your current opinion is wrong, while a such a significant majority of the worlds scientists agree (so many so that the very few who spout a differing and non peer-reviewed opinions are given a disproportionate amount of press) that something is happening due to mans impact on the environment, so we do nothing. It will be too late by the time people like yourself can be shown such on overwhelming amount of evidence to completely convince you that something is happening. By then water levels will have risen. Ocean currents will have changed - potentially leading to the stopping of he gulf stream that keeps most of Europe warmer than it should be for the latitudes it is on, causing Europe to have severely cold winters affecting over 500 million people. Weather extremes globally will wreak havoc causing significant dollar losses. Oh, by the way, the insurance industry is already starting to factor in global warming in their risk analysis.

With increased temperatures and water levels tropical diseases like Malaria will spread in to countries that are currently free from them, leading to many many deaths. Do you want to be partialy responsible for these deaths?

Why not do something now to try and amerliorate the problems. It will be cheaper, you wont have to pay increased insurance costs for a start and you and your family may not pick up a tropical disease.

I can only hope we find a benevolent ETI that will help us overcome this problem before it is too late, but somehow I don't think so.

Overall we can't go spewing stuff into the atmosphere for over 100 years without something going wrong.

Live long and BOINC (this discussion almost makes me want to do climate prediction again).

Paul.

ps. I haven't seen any evidence that you have pit forward yet!