If you look REAL close the clouds look like AL BORE smoking his crack pipe.

Global warming has more to do with ice melting at the poles than it does with cold fronts.

Here's one from today
{{gwi:99899}}
Warmer in the twin cities (MN) than here in GA.

I say we send some trucks up there with tifweed bermierda and centiwede to hold up better in the global warming.

global warming lol...

Global warming has more to do with ice melting at the poles than it does with cold fronts.

I was holding my tongue on that one. ;-)

There's a wonderful blog done by actual climate scientists.

These are not scientifically uneducated pundits with "opinions," they actually study the climate as their jobs and present science...and explain it so it's easier to understand to the layman.

Also, unlike the pundit who has to gripe a lot to stay employed, these people don't. Wither or no the globe warms, these people have jobs. They don't care about opinions, just the science.

(You can see I have a might of an issue with the uneducated opinion competing with educated study. Call me a snob if you will)

Why hold your tongue? How about you summarize that blog and straighten us out in one bite size chunk without any political undertones. That's what Tee-Dubs post was about. It was a cry for help amidst record low approval ratings with the republicans and mistake after monumental mistake.

Why hold your tongue? How about you summarize that blog and straighten us out in one bite size chunk without any political undertones. That's what Tee-Dubs post was about. It was a cry for help amidst record low approval ratings with the republicans and mistake after monumental mistake.

Got that right. As I looked, I mis-spoke a bit; I was holding my tongue on the crack pipe comment, not yours. I grow weary of an anti-science administration...and its supporters.

The quick summary is that the globe has warmed and estimates indicate that it will continue to do so at an accelerating rate. Heat in the pipeline already means there's not much we can do about the next thirty years, but cutting greenhouse gasses will improve it thereafter (if we start right now).

The tropics won't heat much because they'll expand--and they're good at dissipating heat northward in the form of hurricanes and tropical storms. The temperate zone moves northward and warms somewhat. The polar regions shrink drastically and experience the greatest warming.

Weather isn't climate, so even a few years of cooler weather doesn't mean the globe isn't warming (likewise, a few years of warmer weather...and so on). Climate is a compilation of averages over wide areas over periods of time. One cold year does not invalidate a theory. Particularly when one of the effects of GW is unpredictable and very weird weather.

Interestingly, as the world warms, if the water/salt (thermohaline) cycle is disrupted in the Atlantic Ocean, one of the side effects will be a sudden cold trend in the United States and Europe. This was (very, very poorly) portrayed in "The Day After Tomorrow." The science in that film just sucked eggs.

Any contention? Sure, scientists argue a lot. Its part of the self-correcting nature of science. At this point, there's a 95% consensus, which is very high. Most of the argument is on where, how, and how bad it'll get.

Any serious contention? Not really, no: most contrarians are not climate scientists. There's more than there is for the Theory of Evolution (sidenote: if someone says "it's just a theory" then they don't understand what a theory is). There's far less argument than on universal structure (String theory, Brane theory and the like).

"These are not scientifically uneducated pundits with "opinions," they actually study the climate as their jobs and present science...and explain it so it's easier to understand to the layman."

Long before pundits got involved, educated scientist, in the field of climatology, have been warning us about the effects of green house gasses contributed by man. Many people are stating that global warming is an idea of Al Gore because he hosts a movie about. All he and the producer did was compile information from scientists into a movie for those that do not read up on this stuff on their own. ItÂs not his own material.

Despite the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, you can always find a blog or website somewhere that is going to have a few scientists with views that feel more comfortable. Data can always be skewed and graphed a certain way to make a point. But don't think for a minute that some website that has you own personal more comfortable opinion is going to skew data to a "more correct" position. ItÂs just set the way people that support them want to view it. Believe me; I would love to believe the scientists that say global warming is not our problem. Who wouldnÂt?

Long before pundits got involved, educated scientist, in the field of climatology, have been warning us about the effects of green house gasses contributed by man.

Agreed, see my comment above yours. I really mis-spoke, I guess, as the seeming result wasn't at all what I intended.

While scientifically interested and self-educated, I certainly don't have the acumen to create a hypothesis of my own. I have to go with the experts in any given field, and they're pretty unanimous in saying that GW is happening.

Hence, unless new evidence should come to light requiring an alteration of that theory, GW is happening.

It certainly is happening. But the map above doesn't prove it. All you have to do is look beyond your own climate, beyond a few unusual instances (as indicated) and consider the polar and rainforest regions. Elementary I know, but it's enough to convince me. My only problem is the constant finger pointing like effects of green house gasses contributed by man. The fact is, it's happened before and is happening now. It's a natural and expected cycle. This is the third cycle if I recall correctly, though I surely forget the name of it. So, why the movement? Why the alarm since we are not the cause and we certainly cannot stop it? Why suggestions for alternatives that will present other problems, won't reduce the current ones, and all being contributory (as they say). Sounds like science and intelligence in reverse. There is no alternative.

It's a natural and expected cycle. This is the third cycle if I recall correctly, though I surely forget the name of it. So, why the movement? Why the alarm since we are not the cause and we certainly cannot stop it?

We're in the Holocene period right now, an interglacial period after a set of ice ages.

There does seem to be a great influence on the climate from human beings--CO2 levels spike higher every year, and the biological processes that remove it can't keep up with the eleven billion tons we pour into the atmosphere yearly.

That's an additional stress of 3-4% on the system. While, at the same time, we cut down forests and reduce biodiversity.

Bad move. The blog I listed has some great explanations of how and why; I'm sure my explanation isn't the clearest or most coherent.

Most of the people that I know agree that Global Warming is occurring. Where they disagree is the extent that the activities of man are contributing to it. Granted CO2 levels have spiked recently. However, there are many other greenhouse gases. Methane, for example, has been reduced and aerosols have the opposite affect.

Clearly, more research needs to be done. I don't think that we should take any steps that have a high price tag until we understand the cause and effect relationships better.

That said, I think there are many other reasons to conserve energy and develop alternative fuel sources whether or not burning fossil fuels contribute to Global Warming.

-Deerslayer

If this was just an issue of cutting back on CO2, then the situation would not seem that ominous, at least not to me. Yes, there are other greenhouse gases, but their heating effect increases as CO2 increases. Warmer air holds more water vapor (greenhouse gas), when there is more water vapor in the air, it gets warmer. Methane gas is a much more intense GHG than CO2, but it leaves the atmosphere quicker. Unfortunately, as things get warmer, more things rot and let off more methane (situation with significant moss in the tundra that is now uncovered from ice). So and and so on the cycle goes. Yes, the planet would warm slowly on its own without our help, but our industrial spike of CO2 has hastened things and has contributed to other cycles increasing the effect.
Not sure how much more research we want to do to avoid a high price tag of doing something. We are getting to the point, if not there already, where the cost of doing nothing is going to be much greater than the cost of cutting back CO2 now. Many of the predictions of global warming's timing are wrong: its happening sooner. Ice caps are melting sooner than predicted, regional temps are higher than expected, etc. I would rather pay a high price now (and conserve energy), than having my kids pay a higher price later.
I also think we are selling ourselves short to assume that making these changes are going to be nothing but costly. Many things could benefit from innovation that we need. How about putting displaced auto engineers to work on developing alternative energy sources? We have the human capital and intellect to do it.

I remember the Global Cooling scare in the mid-1970s. Many credible scientists believed that the earth was rapidly cooling. Aerosols, which were banned for many uses in 1978, were considered one of the culprits. To slow down the cooling, some scientists recommended covering the poles with soot to melt the polar ice caps. It's a good thing we didn't buy into that idea! How can we be so sure that scientists have it right this time?

Global Cooling

-Deerslayer

This whole issue has devolved so far into politics that it
seems that people of good faith on both sides have gotten overly strident and lost sight of what is
actually true.

Lets pretend for a moment that the issue of "global warming" and all of its attendant baggage didn't exist.

Okay. I live in Chicago. The el stop near my house happens
to be right in the middle of 10 lanes of I94/90. I would invite anyone to come stand on that el stop with me for a half hour or so and then tell me that it wouldn't be a good
idea to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. If that doesn't do it then I'd suggest you move into one of the verrrry cheap apartments along I94/90 and come back at the
end of your lease with all of your savings and tell us how
much better off you are as a result. Im guessing that gets
zero takers.

Now...you could say I could move somewhere else if I
don't like it. Very true. But copious amounts of crap
still go in the air regardless or where I live and
good luck seperating roads and population centers.

I could move, you may live somewhere else. But the truth
is that many many many people live in close proximity to
heavily used interstates and highways. It will always but this way and in fact will only get worse.

You could say that I-90/94 and other roadways like
them are absolutely crucial to our economy, national
security, and way of life. I would agree wholeheartedly.
But copious amounts of crap go into the air regardless.

So it seems to me that the rubber meets the road here:
Do you think we can do better or not??? Period. Not
some nya-nya personality crap. Can we fuel our economy in
a way that doesn't pollute the air? Yes or no? Is it even worthwhile to find out? Which side of that do you want to
come down on? Breath in as much of that expressway air as
you want then let me know where you stand.

The whole thing is a lot more complex than either side will admit to but its far too important to just let the discussion become mired in personlities and politics.

That's what I wrote several posts ago. Here it is again.

"there are many other reasons to conserve energy and develop alternative fuel sources whether or not burning fossil fuels contribute to Global Warming."

If the far left were as smart as they think they are, they would decouple the fossil fuel issue from Global Warming. Even the far right will admit that there is an energy problem. They're reminded each time they fill up their gas tanks, read about energy producing countries funding terrorist activities, or see the air quality measurement on the nightly weather report.

-Deerslayer

If we agree that there are so many good reasons to
pursure alternative sources of energy, and I think we
do agree on that, then why bring up "Global Cooling"
(yours) or post a weather map with unseasonably cool
low temps (not yours) as if it had anything to do with
issues concerning fossil fuel consumption? There is a lot of common ground around this issue like you say. Lots of different people can find an awful lot to agree about when they stop taking their cues from radio talk show hosts or
documentaries.

Everyone that knows me is aware that I think on my own.

We initially were discussing Global Warming. My contention was that we need more research. You disagreed. I used the Global Cooling link to defend my position. After that you stated that politics should be left out of the discussion. I referred you to an earlier post where I stated that there are many reasons to conserve energy and to research alternative energy sources. Basically, I agreed with you. I then pointed out that I think that the Global Warming scare might be a moronic red herring.

What's your point?

-Deerslayer

Global cooling doesn't make the point you feel it does.
Rather it makes the opposite. Science, when wrong, is self correcting. Thats why we don't hear much about the
ether anymore. That should tend to make people more comfortable with observations about global warming. It doens't because the issue has been hi-jacked by blowhards, who btw are not self correcting. This is why we get talk show hosts and amatuers who think they know more about science than scientists.

And in any event....

Since no one wants to argue that fossil fuel emmissions are good for the enviroment or our long term national interests why are some people so disdainful of efforts to diminish them regardless of the impetus. If global warming turns out to be the next global cooling so what?
Science will have worked just like its supposed to and
perhaps we will have moved towards more sustainable energy.
Wheres the harm?

"If global warming turns out to be the next global cooling so what?"

I agree provided that we don't waste trillions of dollars trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. If the real problem is our dependence on fossil fuels, let's address that problem directly. While some of the solutions to both problems will be the same, not all will be.

-Deerslayer

I used the Global Cooling link to defend my position.

Oops. Unfortunately, that was not a large group of scientists--it was mostly our over-reactive news media who finds these kinds of stories to be just great at generating revenue.

Here's the reference for that claim.

Science, when wrong, is self correcting. Thats why we don't hear much about the
ether anymore. That should tend to make people more comfortable with observations about global warming. It doens't because the issue has been hi-jacked by blowhards, who btw are not self correcting. This is why we get talk show hosts and amatuers who think they know more about science than scientists.

Ah, thank you, yes. That minor global cooling thingy was 1976 or so. 31 years ago.

We've moved along since then. Lovelock and Lorentz, weather and climate models, computing power, they're all contributing to our understanding.

Blowhards and converts never change their minds because it costs them money and popularity to do so. Our administration is so knee-deep in energy production that a nice cultivated blind spot helps their bottom lines.

Were we to disprove GW tomorrow, I'd merrily shrug and accept the newer, presumably more accurate theory.

That isn't likely.

"Were we to disprove GW tomorrow, I'd merrily shrug and accept the newer, presumably more accurate theory."

Unfortunately, I think many people feel the same way. The fact that science is self-correcting won't make me feel better if we spend massive amounts of funds to fix a problem that doesn't exist. There are no do-overs after the money has been spent.

Granted, we know more now than we did in the mid-1970s. Isn't it likely we'll know even more in another 10 years? If we wait 10 years, is the world going to come to an end? I doubt it. In the meantime, we can continue to perform research for alternative energy sources. Alternative energy sources are needed regardless.

-Deerslayer

I don't know any mainstream people calling for out there actions to combat global warming. All the "cures" are things we should do anyway - improve energy efficiency in consumer products, develop alternative fuels, pollute less etc.

Exactly billl. Its really hard to paint
this as anything other than win/win.
People are against doing anything about
GW but nobody wants to get rah-rah in
favor of visible air, oil based foreign
policy etc. By and large its the same
thing.

improve energy efficiency in consumer products, develop alternative fuels, pollute less etc.

Yep. Maybe we should start a thread on efficient, non-polluting (or at least minimally polluting) lawn care practices.

Here's an example of how we continue to learn more about climate change and why we shouldn't be too hasty in drawing conclusions. The article below was published within the last week.

-Deerslayer

Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said Thursday the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed.

DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest.

That contrasts sharply with the prevailing view that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago, according to a summary of the study, which is published Thursday in the journal Science.

The samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 C (1 F) in the winter.

They also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 C (9 F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.

"These findings allow us to make a more accurate environmental reconstruction of the time period from which these samples were taken," said Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, and a co-author of the paper.

"What we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought."

(Antarctica)

In a separate paper, also published in Science, European experts said they had analysed the world's deepest ice core, enabling them to reconstruct patterns of warming and glaciation over the past 800,000 years.

The 3,260-metre (10,595-feet) core was drilled into the East Antarctica icesheet at the Franco-Italian base, Dome C. The drillers, gathered in a venture called the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) stopped just 15 metres (48.75 feet) short of the bedrock.

Using traces of the hydrogen isotope deuterium in air bubbles trapped in the ice layers, the scientists built a record of greenhouse-gas concentrations over the aeons, which in turn provides a record of temperature.

They found the temperature varied widely, by as much as 15 C (27 F) over the 800,000 years. In the last Ice Age, which ended around 11,000 years ago, the temperature was 10 C (18 F) lower than today.

The EPICA team had previously analysed the Dome C core to a depth equivalent to 650,000 years ago.

Here's an example of how we continue to learn more about climate change and why we shouldn't be too hasty in drawing conclusions. The article below was published within the last week.

Do you have a reference for where it was published? I'm idly curious.

Ok it's almost a month later and here's an updated temperature map.
{{gwi:99900}}

Once again, here in Atlantarctica it is reasonable at 85 and where the heavily populated midwestern and midatlantic cities are all warmer. Alabama,& TX are hot as blazes as usual.

"Do you have a reference for where it was published?"

Here's a link to much more detail.

Climate Research

Go to the bottom of the screen for references.

-Deerslayer

Quircky, I see your point. The South is hot and the North is cooler but since it's summer in North America, it's warm almost everywhere! 8^)

-Deerslayer

Deerslayer,

What your article doesn't address is the *rate*
of warming which thus far has no natural
explanation. Yes. The earth has been warmer
in the past. Its been colder in the past. That
isn't new information. What is new information
is the speed at which the lower atmosphere AND
the oceans are warming now.

But I'll repose my orginal question to you.
Even if GW turns out to be wrong where is the
harm in moving away from fossil fuels??

"where is the harm in moving away from fossil fuels?"

There's no harm provided that we don't do something stupid but let's not confuse the issue.

"Its been colder in the past."

Actually, the main takeaway in the article is that it's been warmer than originally thought. Even so, the icecaps didn't melt.

I think you missed my key point. There is a lot we don't know about climate change. My link is an example of some recent changes in thinking.

-Deerslayer

I think you missed my key point. There is a lot we don't know about climate change. My link is an example of some recent changes in thinking.

We knew that. The one thing I can't find in this article is who paid for the research.

One quote:

The study suggests "that the southern-central Greenland ice cap did not disappear during the last interglacial period, about 120,000 years ago, when the temperatures were about 5 degrees Celsius warmer than today

We also had a good indication of this already--the Greenland ice shelf is expected to be quite stable through the 21st century, barring unexpected changes. By the end of the century, temperatures will be past the 5°C rise marker. Current middle-of-the-road thinking puts sea level rises at quite moderate through the 21st.

I'd have to actually read the paper in Science to see what they're saying. What we're getting here is the pop-sci version, which oversimplifies horribly and takes out all the scince-speak that tells you what the data actually says.

This is a bit of a red herring. Nobody's worried about drowning in the next fifty to a hundred years in rising oceans.

We're more worried about climate-driven alterations in weather patterns that will change agricultural zones and available potable water.

That's already starting to happen. It's a bit like saying you think you have a wire short in the wall but you aren't going to do anything about it because it's too expensive.

GW doesn't suggest that we know everything
there is to know about climate change.
That really isn't the issue. Simply
put the issue is can there be another
explanation for the vast amount of
data collected from many sources all
over the world. Thus far there isn't
another comprehensive explanation that
even comes close to explaining not only
the climate changes we're seeing but the
rate at which the climate is changing.

But if, as you say, you don't see any harm
in cutting fossil fuel usage then why the
push back on the issue of GW?? If it turns
out to be wrong so what? We can always make
more Hummers if we want to. I get the sense
that this is more of a visceral issue with
you

"Nobody's worried about drowning in the next fifty to a hundred years in rising oceans."

I don't think that Al Gore got the memo.

"It's a bit like saying you think you have a wire short in the wall but you aren't going to do anything about it because it's too expensive."

Not quite, what I'm saying is let's make sure we have a short that we can fix before we begin tearing down the walls.

-Deerslayer

But if, as you say, you don't see any harm in cutting fossil fuel usage then why the push back on the issue of GW?"

I'm basically a Libertarian which means that I dislike government control of most things. That's where I see GW going. If people want to reduce their use of fossil fuels, great, I think it's a good idea for many reasons...national security is one of them.

-Deerslayer

Deerslayer,

That is a completely legitimate issue. Will
government or private business lead us away
from fossil fuels? I tend to think business
is better suited to repsond to demand than
government but at some point demand may need
to be spurred with some incentive. I may be
wrong about that but that is a point about
which reasonable people can disagree.

But.....

At this point that isn't the discussion you're
having. You are still trying to make the point
that GW is false/a hoax/wrong or what have you.
At some point your side is going to have to
choose on that one or not complain when you
lose out on the politics. It seems to me that
your interests would be better served by
accepting the data and moving the discussion
forward from there. In other words I think
you guys are too caught up in your dislike
for Al Gore. (who I am no fan of)

Decklap, you appear very sure that the scientists already have done enough work. That's where we disagree. I think more research is needed before corrective action that carries an economic cost is taken.

I'm not as concerned as I once was. I think the GW movement is beginning to loose traction. I read that Al Gore's recent concerts were a big bust. It appears that the majority of the U.S. voters have already lost interest in the topic. Bottom line, more time is available for additional research.

BTW, who said that I hate Al Gore? I don't hate him, I just don't believe him. He has a career long track record of distorting/stretching the truth.

-Deerslayer

Deerslayer,

I can't imagine a single legitimate
question that would still exist in
the minds of an even marginally objective
person. You might be interested in checking
out the debate Gingrich had with Kerry
recently on GW. This is where your libertarian
interests in the matter should actually be.

"I can't imagine a single legitimate question that would still exist in the minds of an even marginally objective person."

Maybe you don't have a very good imagination! 8^)

Before the study that I referenced was published, most climate scientists believed that the Greenland ice shelf melted during the last warming period. The study found that DNA samples suggest that the ice shelf didn't melt. The current consensus is that earth's temperature was 9 degrees C warmer during the last warming period. Evidence also suggests that the sea level increased during the last warming period. Why didn't the ice shelf melt? Where did the water come from if the ice shelf didn't melt? What other incorrect conclusions have the scientists made?

I read about the Gingrich/Kerry debate. Newt believes that there is enough evidence to take some action. So what? Both Gingrich and Kerry have been wrong in the past.

I agree that evidence is building to support taking some action on GW but I'm still skeptical. What the action should be and how it is enforced world-wide is even more problematic.

-Deerslayer

Why didn't the ice shelf melt? Where did the water come from if the ice shelf didn't melt? What other incorrect conclusions have the scientists made?

Thermohaline cycle, there are plenty of glaciers and ice shelves that don't rely on the Gulf Stream for their weather, and far fewer than pundits, respectively.

If you have a few hours at some point, check the history of Lake Agassiz in the Great Lakes region (our current Great Lakes are a faint memory of that one). The upshot being that we had a warming world and a sharp ice age in the eastern US and Europe. Weather is not climate. Local climate is not global climate.

"Weather is not climate. Local climate is not global climate."

I understand that. My point was that climatologists are still learning. Many of them thought that the Greenland ice shelf melted during the last warming period. It now appears that it didn't. What will the scientists discover next? Even the scientists admit that there is much more to be learned about the global climate.

-Deerslayer

I've linked below to a video I found interesting about GW. If you are a digg.com viewer you may have seen it already.

Here is a link that might be useful: Interesting argument about global warming.

That's a fairly solid argument but a bit simplistic. You really need probabilities put on the boxes. For example, if the probability of the global demise box was 1%, it may not be worth a worldwide depression to avoid the possibility.

Also, timing of the action isn't considered. His model is simply action/no action. Again, back to probabilities...what is the probability of a catastrophe occurring in 10 years or less? My guess is that it is very, very low.

In addition, the model assumes that something can be done about GW on a global basis. Heck, we can't even control our own borders...we're going to control the world's CO2 emissions?

We can use the same argument for outlawing nuclear weapons. We haven't had much success with that either.

Thanks for posting the link, the video was worth watching.

-Deerslayer

Nope. My point was last night the low got down to about 58 or 59 here. No joke.
Today it barely got into the 80's although it was overcast most of the day.
But still.

We may get some hot summer nights but it hasn't happened yet. Maybe in Aug or later this month.

Quirky we didn't get out of the 60's on Friday here. That is the 2nd time this month it has stayed in the 60's for highs. We have had several mornings this month in the lower 50's. Drove the parkway on Friday between 6:30 and 7:00 Friday evening and between 3-4000 feet it was sunny with blue skies and the temp was 60 degrees. Felt like Fall already. Did you see that Buenos Aires, Argentina had their first measureable snowfall since 1918 earlier this week?

Deerslayer,

You have to know you're nitpicking. Honestly, don't you?
If you're inclined to ignore the bulk of the evidence
then you'll always be able to hitch your wagon to
a few slender shreds of doubt. Thats where you're
at on this. None of your examples hold the water
you imagine because they're terrible narrow in
scope and don't even begin to address the totality
of the issue.

For maybe the tenth time now.....

Even if GW is wrong where is the harm in moving
away from fossil fuels?? You've said you don't
believe there is any harm so why trouble yourself
to even argue the point?? Cause you don't like
the politics of the people advancing the GW position
so the entire thing comes down to a personality
conflict which you're willing to wage. Which
is funny to me because thats exactly the kind
of bias your side tends to accuse the GWer's
of being guilty of. Pot, kettle, kettle pot.

The larger irony is that the remaining rightwingers
still willing to make the denial argument will
be the same ones to squawk the loudest when the
solutions don't fit their particular political
paradigm.

Decklap,

You keep making innuendos that simply are not true. Who said anything about not liking someone's politics or having personality conflicts? Why the personal attacks? Can't you conduct a debate based on the merit of your arguments?

Below is my position taken from early in this thread.
"Most of the people that I know agree that Global Warming is occurring. Where they disagree is the extent that the activities of man are contributing to it."

The earth is not a stable place. It is constantly changing. Clearly, ice caps have receded recently which is an indication of global warming. I don't dispute that. What we don't know is the extent human activity is contributing to the warming trend and whether humans can (or should) alter the trend. If you know of a study that quantifies the extent that humans have contributed to Global Warming, please let me know. I would like to read it.

My position is and has been that more research is needed before any costly "remedies" are undertaken.

As I said earlier, I sense that U.S. voters are losing interest in the GW debate so I don't see any hasty actions being taken in the near future. In the meantime, the world's scientists will learn more about climate change and the role that humans play in it.

-Deerslayer

People should take care of the earth regardless of GW being pushed on us. Future generations are at stake and we should be responsible. Not so sure if GW is caused by man and there are still things going on that say it is not occuring at all just natural cycles the earth goes thru. One problem that has cropped up is the fact that NWS facilities have been using thermometers that have not been calibrated and or have been subjected to external influences causing warmer readings than there surroundings. Accuweather has got some good reporting on the effects in their GW section. Outstanding cold events are still happening all over the world. Greenland which is in the arctic has had a very cold summer so far and Antarctica has been having a very cold/below normal winter also for them. Here is a link to the cold in South America last week. Snow in Brazil. http://www.metsul.com/secoes/visualiza.php?cod_subsecao=32&cod_texto=858

"Even if GW is wrong where is the harm in moving
away from fossil fuels??"

First, you may be right. We may need to. But, your question shows a complete lack of understanding. Our worldwide society has trillions invested in an oil infrastructre. "Moving away from it" is like suddenly deciding hospitals are causing AIDS so we just need to quit using every hospital in the world and build new ones. It could be done. It might even need to be done, but don't fool yourself into believing it won't come at monumental cost. Money going in to that changing and rebuilding that might go to other things like starvation, education, housing.

Then, what if we spend all that time and money going to new hospitals worldwide, only to find the old hospitals weren't the problem, or worse, the new untried hospitals have even worse long term effects?

As we have seen new technologies often appear to be cleaner or better early on only to be discovered to have a bigger can of worms when we have more experience with them.

Lastly, putting any group in charge of intentionally trying to change and manage the weather world-wide scares me more than the risks I KNOW about from GW right now. We have done our dead level best, on what we have known at the time, to manage our national forests and lands in the West and have time after time seen that we screwed up and needed to make big changes after decades.

Put a bunch of govt types in charge of purposefully trying to monkey with the weather world wide? NOT my idea of a smart thing to do unless its absolutely clear what we are doing or absolutely clear that we HAVE to do something. And, despite the media induced paranoia, we aren't close to knowing those things are true yet.