Well, we're screwed.

[Biggles]

Historically, volcanoes are associated with cooling, poor summers and starvation. This occurred in the late stone age/early bronze age again in the early Dark Ages (500ADs) and at other discernable points in history too.

In other words they do impact on climate and they do have serious reprecussions. However, they are not generally considered to be vehicles for global warming.

The rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is measureable and can be compared with core samples taken for various periods in the past. We have impacted on the atmosphere and the Greenland ice sheet is melting. As far as I can see the predictive models do struggle with all the permutations. The indications appear to be that the UK, for example, is likely to get colder (this is a bit of a bummer in my view). Of course natural cycles have occurred and these have in the past self corrected. The inordinately warm period in the 12th century was followed in the 14th to 17th centuries with a mni-ice age. It may be that if we have messed up the balance Mother Nature will spank everything back into shape (although not necessarily in a way to our liking).

[Skillian]

My impressions of the Michael Crichton book was that many scientists and scientific journals have an agenda that means they bury studies that question man's effect on climate change.

Out of interest, I went to the nature website and searched the articles for climate change. The very first result included this in its abstract:

"We find that, for some regions, the impacts of human-induced climate change by 2050 will be undetectable relative to those due to natural multi-decadal climate variability. If misleading assessments of—and inappropriate adaptation strategies to—climate-change impacts are to be avoided, future studies should consider the impacts of natural multi-decadal climate variability alongside those of human-induced climate change."

Therefore, I still feel that scientific research and studies are the best way of learning about the issue - actually I don't think there's any other way, apart from becoming a climatologist yourself and conducting your own study, and that's gonna take you a good 15 years.

[j2k4]

Climate does indeed change naturally but this fact doesn’t discredit mans influence in speeding up the process.

Neither does it attempt to QUANTIFY man's "influence in speeding up the process", if you'll notice...

[j2k4]

...Would you prefer Atlas Shrugged never to have been written?

God, yes. Did anyone really need to be subjected to Galt's fifty-odd page speech?

If that's not possible, can we just get her an editor?

Smartass.

And Uncle Tom's Cabin?

[j2k4]

My impressions of the Michael Crichton book was that many scientists and scientific journals have an agenda that means they bury studies that question man's effect on climate change.

Out of interest, I went to the nature website and searched the articles for climate change. The very first result included this in its abstract:

"We find that, for some regions, the impacts of human-induced climate change by 2050 will be undetectable relative to those due to natural multi-decadal climate variability. If misleading assessments of—and inappropriate adaptation strategies to—climate-change impacts are to be avoided, future studies should consider the impacts of natural multi-decadal climate variability alongside those of human-induced climate change."

Therefore, I still feel that scientific research and studies are the best way of learning about the issue - actually I don't think there's any other way, apart from becoming a climatologist yourself and conducting your own study, and that's gonna take you a good 15 years.

Quite right.

Consider ALL the science, not just that which fits the favored preconception, while also keeping in mind that every model has it's flaws.

No one can be sure what will happen, even roughly, and anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda.

[vidcc]

Climate does indeed change naturally but this fact doesn’t discredit mans influence in speeding up the process.

Neither does it attempt to QUANTIFY man's "influence in speeding up the process", if you'll notice...

I would accept this arguement more if the people that point to natural cycles didn't do so to deny mans influence
Usually those that do this also misrepresent what the scientist are saying.

[j2k4]

Neither does it attempt to QUANTIFY man's "influence in speeding up the process", if you'll notice...

I would accept this arguement more if the people that point to natural cycles didn't do so to deny mans influence
Usually those that do this also misrepresent what the scientist are saying.

Not moi.

I haven't noticed this trend you mention, in fact it seems just the opposite; those who would have us quaking in fear over global warming want to browbeat everyone into sharing their conviction that it is all man's fault, and if he would only mend his ways, the warming trend would recede to manageable dimensions.

Kyoto gives the impression all would be made well if the U.S. pays all the fines it would levy on American industry.

It is naught but a mechanism for taxation, much like our I.R.S.

[vidcc]

Usually those that do this also misrepresent what the scientist are saying.

Not moi.

Oh really

I haven't noticed this trend you mention, in fact it seems just the opposite; those who would have us quaking in fear over global warming want to browbeat everyone into sharing their conviction that it is all man's fault, and if he would only mend his ways, the warming trend would recede to manageable dimensions.

And in the same post as well.

It appears that political rhetoric has certainly been influential.

Kyoto gives the impression all would be made well if the U.S. pays all the fines it would levy on American industry.

It is naught but a mechanism for taxation, much like our I.R.S.

I agree that all countries should be cutting down on emissions and none given a pass for economic developement reasons. However your arguement against Kyoto would hold more weight if those that reject it actually wanted to cut emissions at all. We hear the arguement that "the science is flawed", when the rejection has nothing to do with science and everything to do with profit margins. It is equivilent to the tobbacco industry saying there is no evidence connecting cigarrettes with lung cancer.
There is no interest in cutting emissions, but plenty of misleading "programs" that make people think there is.

Call something the "clear skies initative"....who could be against that? I mean everyone wants clear skies. It brings to mind birds chirping and the scent of fresh medows. Fact is the "clear skies initative" actually allows far more polution than the statue it replaced.
Allow 3 times the previously allowed amount of mercury to enter our water table and to make it easier, reterm waterways to allow easier use of the new limits.

[j2k4]

Not moi.

Oh really

I haven't noticed this trend you mention, in fact it seems just the opposite; those who would have us quaking in fear over global warming want to browbeat everyone into sharing their conviction that it is all man's fault, and if he would only mend his ways, the warming trend would recede to manageable dimensions.

And in the same post as well.

It appears that political rhetoric has certainly been influential.

I was commenting on the easily noted compulsion of the opposition to twist/omit/obscure the findings of science.

The pro-Kyoto environmentalists are much more media-savvy and focused than any pro-industry types, possibly because they have no jobs apart from being anti-industry and anti-U.S.

[vidcc]

I was commenting on the easily noted compulsion of the opposition to twist/omit/obscure the findings of science.

Conservatives are your opposition

The pro-Kyoto environmentalists are much more media-savvy and focused than any pro-industry types, possibly because they have no jobs apart from being anti-industry and anti-U.S.

Yeah right

But again, this is an economic arguement to deny mans influence on global warming and has nothing to do with the science.

BTW nice touch implying that those who care about the enviroment are "anti industry" they are not anti industry, they are against unchecked polution. and "anti U.S."??? oh yes that's it...they just hate us...the enviroment has nothing to do with it.