Michael Crichton and Global Warming Myth

[hagbard]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller16.html

[blackhawk]

You dont challenge the "righteous left" on their views!

Climate is changing and is very evident over my lifetime and I always ask, "what caused global warming 100,000 years ago? and a million?" because weather and climate is cyclical based on orbit and tilt plus a bit for atmospheric pollutants from volcanic and comet actions.

As advanced humans we can affect it slightly but global warming will happen no matter what and then there'll be global cooling, its all science and historically proven.

Never trust the loudest people!

So up to 10 billion for kyoto now Mr Dithers! To give to China and Russia :cry:

[bobaroo]

State of Fear is a great read... very insightful too, especially for a "fiction" book

[Headhunter]

Crichton is purposely writing bizarre propositions that he knows will raise a huge uproar...leading to improved sales. I doubt he really believes that global warming is a myth.

[d_jedi]

wtf? This guy makes absolutely no sense (not talking about Chrichton):

To meet Kyoto CO2 emission constraints the U.S. would have to reduce the amount of electricity it obtains from burning coal by 50 percent. Since 55 percent of this country’s electricity is supplied by coal (nuclear power and hydropower provide the rest), this would require reducing electricity use by 25 percent, which would cause a corresponding 25 percent drop in GDP. It dropped 10 percent in the Great Depression. Since poverty is a major cause of death, a drop in GDP this severe would be the functional equivalent of a death sentence for millions of Americans.

umm.. can you say huge logical fallacies at just about each step in his reasoning from kyoto->death of millions?

[Spent]

This is some serious doo doo for Canada
and virtually no one has it on their radar!! :mad:

[hagbard]

Crichton is purposely writing bizarre propositions that he knows will raise a huge uproar...leading to improved sales. I doubt he really believes that global warming is a myth.

No, he's a smart guy, he knows global warming is a hoax.

[Spent]

Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth
by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson

Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.


Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Full Article (http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm)

[Tiger the Lion]

I think the problem that many people don't realise in the whole global warming debate is that regardless if anthropogenic CO2 has causation to global warming, continuing to increase our emissions of CO2 will most certainly lead to our demise. Currently, CO2 levels are at 370 ppmv (the maximum natural levels in the past 300 000 years has been 310ppmv). If we burn the rest of our reserves (entirely possible within the next 70 years), we will exceed 700ppmv, leading to massive environmental and climate catastrophes. Check out this recent Journal of International Hydrogen Energy article (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-4DPC4BJ-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01/01/2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b0312e468bda451adfd046afe74b4bed) by David Scott (http://www.me.uvic.ca/Faculty/DSres.html) for more info. Or check out this link (http://thewatt.com/article.pl?sid=05/03/09/0145203&mode=nested).

[Bob_123]

I rather believe the scientists with PHDs. As opposed to Michael Crichton.

[manixc]

Sadly, Global Warming is real.

[artsreview]

Sadly, Global Warming is real.
But is the cause really greenhouse gases? I think we should study it further before forcing Kyoto on everyone.

Although reducing pollution is good in general.

[hagbard]

I rather believe the scientists with PHDs. As opposed to Michael Crichton.

Did you read the article?

[milk]

I rather believe the scientists with PHDs. As opposed to Michael Crichton.

1.) Crichton's sources are scientists with PhDs. He does have some goofy pseudoscience beliefs, but when this guy researches for a novel he researches everything he can. And if new research shows that the old ideas he used in previous books are wrong, he'll say so (i.e., The Lost World & Jurassic Park).

2.) CO2 levels at 370 ppmv still makes up only about 0.6% of the atmosphere.

3.) When the "problem" of global warming was first theorized in the 1980s, the methodology the guy used was shown to be filled with errors - and subsequent explanations have also had various holes in them like not looking at all the recorded data (only going back as far as the years that support a certain view) or not accounting for other data (such as the urban heat island effect).

4.) "All reality is media reality." This is an incredibly true and important statement. How did you yourself find out about the theory of global warming? Have you looked at a wide variety of studies from both sides before making a decision? Probably not because, honestly, that takes time and effort that most people don't want to bother with. So what makes you think global warming is real? "Because the world leaders believe it." Where did they learn about global warming then? They heard about it from second hand sources. "But newspapers don't lie." Most of us know that's not a true statement. Newspapers don't intentionally lie but for the most part they tend to publish popular belief instead of controversial truth (except in the science pages). If any of you have taken Psychology or Sociology you'll know that people tend to believe something that is either written or shown on a screen - and what do people read and watch most of the time? Newspapers and television - both being media.

[manixc]

But is the cause really greenhouse gases? I think we should study it further before forcing Kyoto on everyone.

Although reducing pollution is good in general.


There is a direct relationship between CO2 and Temperature. It doesn't help that we are cutting down trees

[Casper]

Never trust the loudest people!

A good lesson in life. Unfortunately, in our culture, volume = spotlight = agenda promoted.

[gilboman]

global warming is not real :lol: the holocaust never happened either then :mad:

people really need to look at those supposed "scientists" who find no effect of greenhouse gases and global warming. Also should look at who sponsored their reserach and who they conducted it for. But a lot of people are quite guillible and will actually believe the BS about no global warming

[Tiger the Lion]

2.) CO2 levels at 370 ppmv still makes up only about 0.6% of the atmosphere.

That doesn't mean anything. Even at 700ppmv, it will only be 1.2%, but it will lead to massive repercussions, which will take decades upon decades to come back down to normal levels.


But is the cause really greenhouse gases? I think we should study it further before forcing Kyoto on everyone.

Although reducing pollution is good in general.

May I introduce you to Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager)? Even though there is debate about the correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and global warming, it is better to be cautious and follow Kyoto, than to realise that it was indeed true, but too late to do anything.

The United States follows the principle of "Sound Science" i.e. they will have to have concrete proof of causation before they comply with Kyoto. Europe (and Canada), on the other hand, follow the "Precautionary Principle" i.e. err on the side of caution. I, for one, believe that the US is making a fatal mistake, and that they will be the downfall of us all.

[artsreview]

May I introduce you to Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager)? Even though there is debate about the correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and global warming, it is better to be cautious and follow Kyoto, than to realise that it was indeed true, but too late to do anything.

The United States follows the principle of "Sound Science" i.e. they will have to have concrete proof of causation before they comply with Kyoto. Europe (and Canada), on the other hand, follow the "Precautionary Principle" i.e. err on the side of caution. I, for one, believe that the US is making a fatal mistake, and that they will be the downfall of us all.
Belief in God costs nothing. Implementing Kyoto costs trillions of dollars. Before we commit that, shouldn't we at least know what benefits we are deriving? And besides, there are starving people dying right now. No hypothesizing needed. Isn't Kyoto money better spent giving them food, for instance? Just a thought... ;)

As for global warming and CO2... correlation isn't always cause. The earth has been warming and cooling disastrously for millenia. Yes, scientists agree for sure that the climate is changing, but ask around. You'll find they DON'T agree that emissions is the cause for that change. :)

[Tiger the Lion]

Belief in God costs nothing. Implementing Kyoto costs trillions of dollars. Before we commit that, shouldn't we at least know what benefits we are deriving? And besides, there are starving people dying right now. No hypothesizing needed. Isn't Kyoto money better spent giving them food, for instance? Just a thought... ;)

As for global warming and CO2... correlation isn't always cause. The earth has been warming and cooling disastrously for millenia. Yes, scientists agree for sure that the climate is changing, but ask around. You'll find they DON'T agree that emissions is the cause for that change. :)

True, belief in God is free, but the argument still stands. Regardless of the costs to implement Kyoto (which will spur technological growth and science, plus jobs), the fact that global warming may happen and may have catastophic events should outweigh any short term costs. I feel that people are more interested in the short term, and if it may not affect them in their lifetime, then they are more than happy to procrastinate. But, there will come a time when the **** hits the proverbial fan, and there is no plan, no infrastructure for a post-carbon economy when we realise that we have to stop using hydrocarbons, then we will be cursing our ancestors for not preparing. This lack of interest and action will be our downfall.

While there are some scientists that disagree with the causation relationship between CO2 and global warming (I am obviously not one of them), they are in the minority. And it is a very small minority at that. The scientists that don't believe the causation are in the pocket of Big Oil.

As fo the starving people today, I would argue that in the long run, implementing Kyoto will better serve the interests of the planet and mankind as a whole. Besides, achieving Kyoto will be far less expensive than bringing all the third-world countries into the 21st century. Kyoto can be achieved in 10 easy steps (http://thewatt.com/article.pl?sid=05/03/07/2238224). If everyone in North America and Europe followed these steps, got rid of their SUVs, and didn't focus so much on consumption, we can have CO2 licked.

There needs to be a paradigm shift in how people approach life. We are not meant to be insatiable consumers; this is an artifact of humankind - we consume until the balance in nature is so off-balance that it leads to a collapse. It happened with the Mayas, the Aztecs, the Romans, and it will happen to us.

[Bob_123]

I've sat through quite a few university lectures (some Chemistry & some Earth and Atmospheric Science & some Ecology) where my professors have attempted to show this relationship. It was quite convincing.

1.) Crichton's sources are scientists with PhDs. He does have some goofy pseudoscience beliefs, but when this guy researches for a novel he researches everything he can. And if new research shows that the old ideas he used in previous books are wrong, he'll say so (i.e., The Lost World & Jurassic Park).

2.) CO2 levels at 370 ppmv still makes up only about 0.6% of the atmosphere.

3.) When the "problem" of global warming was first theorized in the 1980s, the methodology the guy used was shown to be filled with errors - and subsequent explanations have also had various holes in them like not looking at all the recorded data (only going back as far as the years that support a certain view) or not accounting for other data (such as the urban heat island effect).

4.) "All reality is media reality." This is an incredibly true and important statement. How did you yourself find out about the theory of global warming? Have you looked at a wide variety of studies from both sides before making a decision? Probably not because, honestly, that takes time and effort that most people don't want to bother with. So what makes you think global warming is real? "Because the world leaders believe it." Where did they learn about global warming then? They heard about it from second hand sources. "But newspapers don't lie." Most of us know that's not a true statement. Newspapers don't intentionally lie but for the most part they tend to publish popular belief instead of controversial truth (except in the science pages). If any of you have taken Psychology or Sociology you'll know that people tend to believe something that is either written or shown on a screen - and what do people read and watch most of the time? Newspapers and television - both being media.

[i6s1]

The United States follows the principle of "Sound Science" i.e. they will have to have concrete proof of causation before they comply with Kyoto. Europe (and Canada), on the other hand, follow the "Precautionary Principle" i.e. err on the side of caution. I, for one, believe that the US is making a fatal mistake, and that they will be the downfall of us all.


Well, guess who's closer to 1990 CO2 levels, Canada or the USA? The truth is that neither Canada nor the US is actually doing anything, its just that the US isn't lying to themselves.

[ephemera]

There is a direct relationship between CO2 and Temperature. It doesn't help that we are cutting down trees

This is another thing... why are there still trees to cut down? At the rate that these big lumber companies are crearcutting, trees should have been wiped out by now.

Is that another MYTH? Maybe After they cut the trees, they plant more?

What about the catastrophic damage a volcano does? It can erupt and spew ash into the air for many miles around blocking out the sun.

Mankind can polute but couldn't reach the magnatude that mother nature can.

[mbg]

Isn't Kyoto money better spent giving them food, for instance? Just a thought... ;)

If you give them food, they might get the energy to develop their country. And, you'd accelerate global warming.

[artsreview]

If you give them food, they might get the energy to develop their country. And, you'd accelerate global warming.
:lol: That's so South Park.

[Tiger the Lion]

This is another thing... why are there still trees to cut down? At the rate that these big lumber companies are crearcutting, trees should have been wiped out by now.

Is that another MYTH? Maybe After they cut the trees, they plant more?

What about the catastrophic damage a volcano does? It can erupt and spew ash into the air for many miles around blocking out the sun.

Mankind can polute but couldn't reach the magnatude that mother nature can.

A volcano does emit a lot of particulate matter and SOx, CO2, which does lead to a short term cooling of the Earth (think of the summers in the early to mid-90s that were unseasonably cool). This is very short term, however, and tempreatures will return to normal within half a decade. Besides, volcanoes are a natural event, which have been occuring since the beginning of the Earth. They may have a detrimental effect in our view, but in the grand scheme of things, they bring balance.

[Tiger the Lion]

Well, guess who's closer to 1990 CO2 levels, Canada or the USA? The truth is that neither Canada nor the US is actually doing anything, its just that the US isn't lying to themselves.

I don't have the numbers handy, but I think I'm safe to say that Canada is closer. And Canada just released their budget (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/budget2005/issue_environment.html) a few weeks ago, with $5 billion slated to combat climate change. The US, on the other hand, is "still working on the issue of causation, the extent to which humans are a factor, but they may be, as well our understanding of what effects may result from that over the course of the next century". This quote is from James Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environment Quality (read the BBC article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4350481.stm)).

The US is just playing the ostrich (they also have to rationalise their invasion of Iraq), and hoping that the science (which 99% of the scientific community accepts, not to mention most world governments) is wrong. The science isn't wrong. And while it is easy to say that nothing is being done, it's not like we're going to be able to fix this problem overnight. It will take years to achieve this goal. In the long run, however, it is our only solution.

[thrifty1]

I rather believe the scientists with PHDs. As opposed to Michael Crichton.

yeah...the earth is flat

[voodoo401]

The earth is indeed warming and the article that Spent posted is from 1997. New research has come out and shown that human have indeed changed the weather patterns.

Here is a article from march 2005 about the arctic warming
http://www.physorg.com/news3211.html

[milk]

Some of you global warming people think that catasphrophe is going to happen within your lifetime - it won't. IF global warming is indeed real then human society would've already worked on, found and implemented a solution well before "the s*** hits the fan" as one person said. It's the same idea with the world's oil supply:

Supposedly at current consumption rates (with accountability included for rising use due to a rising population) the world will run out of oil in less than a hundred years. Now people believe that their kids and grandkids won't have any oil available to them but seriously that's not true because already there are alternatives available and as society approaches closer to the point of no return, those alternatives will already be widely affordable and in use. Fuel cells, hybrid cars and hydrogen fuel - all of that and others will be very well developed and only isn't in use now because of cost and because people don't need to use them at present. Some of you are only thinking about present problems and answers and assuming that these exact same things will be used in the future. You're not accounting for human learning, growth of science and technology, growth of knowledge and human adaptability - all of which will get the world through any current and future problem. What makes you think there aren't any potential plans that have already been created? If everyone thought like you doomsayers do then humans should've been extinct a long time ago.

Earlier I said that current CO2 levels at 370 ppmv still makes up only about 0.6% of the atmosphere. Someone responded by saying, "That doesn't mean anything. Even at 700ppmv, it will only be 1.2%, but it will lead to massive repercussions, which will take decades upon decades to come back down to normal levels." What makes you think that if CO2 levels in the atmosphere double then that would make the total percentage double as well? Where did the nitrogen, oxygen, argon, helium, methane, hydrogen and etc. go to make room for more CO2? What makes you think the current amount is the "normal" level? The atmospheric composition has only been recorded for the last few decades while human activity on the planet has gone on for much much longer.

And whole issue of increased CO2 levels being correlated with global warming - first of all, seriously define global warming because the popular idea is different from the scientific one and even that isn't agreed upon by scientists and people in the field. Secondly, the correlation is weak at best because when you take a wide look at the hard untouched recorded data (which goes back 150 years) you'll see that temperatures haven't risen or fallen and neither has the sea level. And thirdly, it is VERY difficult to measure increased CO2 levels as being the cause for changes in the atmosphere. Even a study with 5% reliability (because 5% is still positive and that's all that's important to support any cause) will still get published somewhere in the world and the author will go on lecture tours touting their study - would you believe something that's only 5% reliable?

Now the line about "The scientists that don't believe the causation are in the pocket of Big Oil" - that doesn't help your argument at all. Argue on the merits concerning the issue at hand, not name calling and paranoia because that's not evidence at all and actually makes the audience think less of you. Seriously, some of the "arguments" in this thread are nothing but one-line statements that don't say anything at all.

[gilboman]

Now the line about "The scientists that don't believe the causation are in the pocket of Big Oil" - that doesn't help your argument at all. Argue on the merits concerning the issue at hand, not name calling and paranoia because that's not evidence at all and actually makes the audience think less of you. Seriously, some of the "arguments" in this thread are nothing but one-line statements that don't say anything at all.

Then how come only scientists funded by big oil or have ties to them come up with the no global warming BS while the other scientists, many of them way more reputable than the big oil PR gang say otherwise?

but i'll take unbiased science over big oil science anyday. you can go on believing the pesudo science the big oil PR machine spins out.

[hagbard]

Then how come only scientists funded by big oil or have ties to them come up with the no global warming BS while the other scientists, many of them way more reputable than the big oil PR gang say otherwise?

but i'll take unbiased science over big oil science anyday. you can go on believing the pesudo science the big oil PR machine spins out.

Did you read the article? Your "unbiased" scientists are also funded to say there is global warming. Milk has got it 100% right.

[Tiger the Lion]

Some of you global warming people think that catasphrophe is going to happen within your lifetime - it won't. IF global warming is indeed real then human society would've already worked on, found and implemented a solution well before "the s*** hits the fan" as one person said. It's the same idea with the world's oil supply:

Supposedly at current consumption rates (with accountability included for rising use due to a rising population) the world will run out of oil in less than a hundred years. Now people believe that their kids and grandkids won't have any oil available to them but seriously that's not true because already there are alternatives available and as society approaches closer to the point of no return, those alternatives will already be widely affordable and in use. Fuel cells, hybrid cars and hydrogen fuel - all of that and others will be very well developed and only isn't in use now because of cost and because people don't need to use them at present. Some of you are only thinking about present problems and answers and assuming that these exact same things will be used in the future. You're not accounting for human learning, growth of science and technology, growth of knowledge and human adaptability - all of which will get the world through any current and future problem. What makes you think there aren't any potential plans that have already been created? If everyone thought like you doomsayers do then humans should've been extinct a long time ago.

Earlier I said that current CO2 levels at 370 ppmv still makes up only about 0.6% of the atmosphere. Someone responded by saying, "That doesn't mean anything. Even at 700ppmv, it will only be 1.2%, but it will lead to massive repercussions, which will take decades upon decades to come back down to normal levels." What makes you think that if CO2 levels in the atmosphere double then that would make the total percentage double as well? Where did the nitrogen, oxygen, argon, helium, methane, hydrogen and etc. go to make room for more CO2? What makes you think the current amount is the "normal" level? The atmospheric composition has only been recorded for the last few decades while human activity on the planet has gone on for much much longer.



I think you're overestimating the long-term visions of society. Your statement about 'global warming not happening in our lifetiem, so why bother?' is the problem. We don't have any long-term vision, and just hope it won't happen in our lifetime.

We are in exactly the same predicament with peak oil, but we are in or around global Peak Oil right now. We have absolutely no plans for what happens when we do run out of oil. None. Worst case scenario is that we use up all our oil in 70 years. Best estimate is 350 years.

You say that we have alternatives, which is true. The problem, however, is that fuel cells (while a marvelous invention) require methane to produce hydrogen. Methane production in North America peaked 20 years ago. Solar panels and wind turbines are fantastic options. But how many people do you know who are willing to spend CDN$20 000 on PV panels to be entirely self-sufficient in electricity? It is true that science and technology are ever-marching forward, but I don't feel comfortable knowing that on a global scale, we have no plan to convert from a carbon-based existence to a renewable-based one.

And your statement that we only have CO2 records for the past few decades is patently false. Ice cores are an excellent way to record CO2 levels from thousands of years. Please refer to this figure (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm), from the IPCC's most recent report (http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html) on climate change. From the figures, you can see that historically, CO2 has been constant at approximately 280ppm, until it began to rise exponentially beginning in the 1800s.

[gilboman]

Did you read the article? Your "unbiased" scientists are also funded to say there is global warming. Milk has got it 100% right.

ever since talking with david suzuki on this very matter of pesudo science concerning global warmming and who actually supports the no global warming BS and how their science is conducted really shed light on the topic. And again, all the reputable scientists support global warming theory while those who are opposed are either funded by big oil or looking to make a name for themselves.

[hagbard]

ever since talking with david suzuki on this very matter of pesudo science concerning global warmming and who actually supports the no global warming BS and how their science is conducted really shed light on the topic. And again, all the reputable scientists support global warming theory while those who are opposed are either funded by big oil or looking to make a name for themselves.

So, what you're saying is, you didn't read the article, and you believe the master of all pseudo-science himself, David Suzuki.

[artsreview]

This discussion's not about peak oil, it's about climate change. Y'know, we actually agree on 99 per cent of the issues :-0 and it's only one issue that's holding us up.

We agree on:

1. Peak oil
2. Necessity of investing in future technologies
3. Denser urbanization
4. Reducing consumerism

We don't agree that:

1. Human activity causes climate change

1a. As a corollary, if we do change the global climate, does this change shows up as global warming, unpredictable weather, or even global cooling?

So let's just focus on this one issue, shall we? :) That's what this whole thread's about.

My opinion is, we should research first before committing to Kyoto. Don't knock good science by calling it "playing ostrich." So what if there's a consensus among scientists? I say we should beware of consensus and allow dissent to the greatest extent possible. An issue this serious should be examined from all sides.

I think you're overestimating the long-term visions of society. Your statement about 'global warming not happening in our lifetiem, so why bother?' is the problem. We don't have any long-term vision, and just hope it won't happen in our lifetime.

We are in exactly the same predicament with peak oil, but we are in or around global Peak Oil right now. We have absolutely no plans for what happens when we do run out of oil. None. Worst case scenario is that we use up all our oil in 70 years. Best estimate is 350 years.

You say that we have alternatives, which is true. The problem, however, is that fuel cells (while a marvelous invention) require methane to produce hydrogen. Methane production in North America peaked 20 years ago. Solar panels and wind turbines are fantastic options. But how many people do you know who are willing to spend CDN$20 000 on PV panels to be entirely self-sufficient in electricity? It is true that science and technology are ever-marching forward, but I don't feel comfortable knowing that on a global scale, we have no plan to convert from a carbon-based existence to a renewable-based one.

And your statement that we only have CO2 records for the past few decades is patently false. Ice cores are an excellent way to record CO2 levels from thousands of years. Please refer to this figure (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm), from the IPCC's most recent report (http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html) on climate change. From the figures, you can see that historically, CO2 has been constant at approximately 280ppm, until it began to rise exponentially beginning in the 1800s.

[mbg]

My opinion is, we should research first before committing to Kyoto. Don't knock good science by calling it "playing ostrich." So what if there's a consensus among scientists? I say we should beware of consensus and allow dissent to the greatest extent possible. An issue this serious should be examined from all sides.

What if the time window to do research has come and gone? That is one of the potential possibilities in the "peak oil" problem. There may not be enough time to research alternatives. It may also be true for the "global warming" problem.

Some scientists believe that there is a tipping point with climate change. If that is true then if you spend too much time on research, it will not be possible to reverse the damage done, no matter how hard you try.

Regarding the shrinking issues list, it's incredibly simplistic to say that because you agree with someone about something that needs to be done, you also agree on how it should be done, and how the issues relate to the issue of climate change.

[manixc]

the very latest on Global Warming, we are screwed no matter what we do:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html

[Gevaltech]

The earth is indeed warming and the article that Spent posted is from 1997. New research has come out and shown that human have indeed changed the weather patterns.

Here is a article from march 2005 about the arctic warming
http://www.physorg.com/news3211.html

I'm trying to keep an open mind on this controversial topic. But, it's pretty difficult with all the pseudo facts and lists of scientists being tossed about. I appreciate up to date factual info and so I followed the above quoted link and read the article. But the team of scientists working in the arctic are only studying the impact of global warming on things like algae, not the cause of the warming. Yet, they make wild statements about how it is being caused by "human intervention" without any proof given whatsoever.

To make it even more confusing, right under this article are "Related Articles" headed off by one titled: "Record Low Temperatures in Arctic ozone layer" which describes a team of scientists finding, yep, its getting even colder up there.

[artsreview]

Regarding the shrinking issues list, it's incredibly simplistic to say that because you agree with someone about something that needs to be done, you also agree on how it should be done, and how the issues relate to the issue of climate change.

:confused: What d'you mean? I offered no opinion that peak oil and climate change are related. I also did not give my opinion on how to tackle future technologies, densification and consumerism. I only gave my opinion on what I think is the cause of climate change. Isn't that the topic being discussed?

[artsreview]

the very latest on Global Warming, we are screwed no matter what we do:

...

This is from the article:
If humans keep emitting greenhouse gases at present rates, the surface air temperatures could rise between 3.6 and 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit (2 and 6 degrees Celsius) by 2400, and sea levels may edge up at a rate of 9.8 inches (25 centimeters) per century.
To put this in perspective, even if the world's best stockbroker told you that her computer models predict General Electric is THE stock to hold for the next 400 years, would you believe her? Four-hundred-year predictions?? Seriously!

[Tiger the Lion]

[snip]

My opinion is, we should research first before committing to Kyoto. Don't knock good science by calling it "playing ostrich." So what if there's a consensus among scientists? I say we should beware of consensus and allow dissent to the greatest extent possible. An issue this serious should be examined from all sides.

Yes, I agree that we should continue to do research and monitor the relationship between CO2 and GW. At the same time, however, as mbg pointed out, how long are we supposed to 'wait and investigate'? It is not as if we are weighing the pros and cons of buying the latest deal posted in Hot Deals. It doesn't really matter if I miss the sale. It matters a helluva lot if we miss the tipping point on the global warming scale, as it is not something that can be easily tipped back (with current technology).

In my opinion, Kyoto is a major step to first admitting their may even be a problem, and a beginning of rectifying said possible problem. It brings the argument back to the underpinnings of Pascal's Wager. With literally the fate of all life on this planet at stake, it makes no sense not to invest in Kyoto and other CO2-reducing practises, while at the same time to continue research into the phenomenon, methods of mitigation, and alternative sources of energy.

[voodoo401]

Here is another study that was released today by the NSF

Even if these models have only 50% of being right should we take that risk just so that you can drive using cheap gas and use cheap electricity?

Study: World doomed to climate change this century

Even if all greenhouse gases had been stabilized in the year 2000, we would still be committed to a warmer Earth and greater sea level rise in the present century, according to a new study by a team of climate modelers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The findings are published in this week's issue of the journal Science.

The modeling study quantifies the relative rates of sea level rise and global temperature increase that we are already committed to in the 21st century. Even if no more greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere, globally averaged surface air temperatures would rise about a half degree Celsius (one degree Fahrenheit) and global sea levels would rise another 11 centimeters (4 inches) from thermal expansion alone by 2100.

"Many people don't realize we are committed right now to a significant amount of global warming and sea level rise because of the greenhouse gases we have already put into the atmosphere," says lead author Gerald Meehl. "Even if we stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations, the climate will continue to warm, and there will be proportionately even more sea level rise. The longer we wait, the more climate change we are committed to in the future."

The half-degree temperature rise is similar to that observed at the end of the 20th century, but the projected sea level rise is more than twice the 3-inch (5-centimeter) rise that occurred during the latter half of the previous century. These numbers do not take into account fresh water from melting ice sheets and glaciers, which could at least double the sea level rise caused by thermal expansion alone.

The North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, which currently warms Europe by transporting heat from the tropics, weakens in the models. Even so, Europe heats up with the rest of the planet because of the overwhelming effect of greenhouse gases.

Though temperature rise shows signs of leveling off 100 years after stabilization in the study, ocean waters continue to warm and expand, causing global sea level to rise unabated.

The paper concludes with a cogent statement by Meehl: "With the ongoing increase in concentrations of GHGs [greenhouse gases], every day we commit to more climate change in the future. When and how we stabilize concentrations will dictate, on the time scale of a century or so, how much more warming we will experience. But we are already committed to ongoing large sea level rise, even if concentrations of GHGs could be stabilized."

The inevitability of the climate changes described in the study is the result of thermal inertia, mainly from the oceans, and the long lifetime of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Thermal inertia refers to the process by which water heats and cools more slowly than air because it is denser than air.

The new study is the first to quantify future committed climate change using "coupled" global three-dimensional climate models. Coupled models link major components of Earth's climate in ways that allow them to interact with each other. Meehl and his NCAR colleagues ran the same scenario a number of times and averaged the results to create ensemble simulations from each of two global climate models. Then they compared the results from each model.

The scientists also compared possible climate scenarios in the two models during the 21st century in which greenhouse gases continue to build in the atmosphere at low, moderate, or high rates. The worst-case scenario projects an average temperature rise of 3.5°C (6.3°F) and sea level rise from thermal expansion of 30 centimeters (12 inches) by 2100. All scenarios analyzed in the study will be assessed by international teams of scientists for the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due out in 2007.

The NCAR team used the Parallel Climate Model (PCM), developed by NCAR and the Department of Energy, and the new Community Climate System Model (Version 3). The CCSM3 was developed at NCAR with input from university and federal climate scientists around the country and principal funding from the National Science Foundation (NCAR's primary sponsor) and the Department of Energy. The CCSM3 shows slightly higher temperature rise and sea level rise from thermal expansion and greater weakening of the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic. Otherwise, the results from the two models are similar. The models were run on supercomputers at NCAR and several DOE labs and on the Earth Simulator in Japan.

Here is the link of the article
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=103108&org=olpa&from=news