If you want to stay correctly informed...

[j2k4]

I dont think any reputable scientist has ever said that Global Warming is caused by Human Activity.

The world has gone through a lot of Ice Ages and a lot of Tropical Phases, and will go through many more in the future (of Both).

What they have said, and shown, is that Human Activity has increased the rate of Global Warming to outside of the limits to what would naturally be expected.

It is a known fact that CO2, amongst other gases, has a "Greenhouse" effect. No one denies this, not even those that disagree about Global Warming.

However, although they agree that this is a "Greenhouse Gas", they then contradict themselves by saying that producing lots of it does not have the effect of a Greenhouse Gas....

Dont get me wrong...

Human Activity is not even the largest producer of Greenhouse Gases.. one large Volcanic Eruption produces probably around about the same amount as the annual output of an average industrialised country, there are plenty of natural causes too.

However, the way nature deals with CO2 is via plants, some produce the worlds Oxygen with it and some grow and store it... such as Trees.

When you kill a tree, you arent killing a net Oxygen producer (as some ill informed Greenies would say), you are however releasing the net total of CO2 that nature has stored in that tree back into the cycle.

We are therefor attacking from both sides:

On the one side we are contributing to the amount of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere, which contributes towards Global Warming. There is no way that anyone can deny that, so they dont, they spin the facts eg: "We arent the major reason" (we arent, not many people would say we are).

On the other, we are also destroying huge tracts of natures way of dealing with excess CO2 by destroying, as an example, the Rainforests. This also contributes to Global Warming both by the release of that stored CO2 (usually through burning, but even if just left to rot the Bacteria has the same effect, just much slower) and the fact that there are less trees to actually store the excess in.


Its quite Ironic that one of the best ways people can be "Environmentaly Aware" is by buying wooden furniture, made from fast growing renewable wood, and making the guys that cut it down re-plant. And also by having large Libraries of books at home... that way you are storing Carbon yourself and starting the cycle of naturally storing carbon again.


As Terry Pratchet would say... "lies to children" is the way that things are taught. ie: Teach them a generalisation with an easy solution.

Just like you learn something in Primary School (a simple rule of thumb), then find out that is not quite true in Secondary (Laws of Motion/Thermodynamics etc), then find that this is also quite untrue in University (Quantum Physics).

The trouble is with this methodology... when you have groups that have money involved to prove the opposite, its very easy to spin the facts in the opposite direction. Quite often both sides are correct in what they are saying based on the facts involved, but both sides only paint part of a picture.

Frankly, 99% of the worlds population would not understand the whole thing.. so its pointless confusing everyone trying to explain it all. They have to keep a very complicated thing very simple, to keep the public interest.


Its also a spin to say "This Glacier is growing, so Global Warming as false".

Frankly, with Global Warming.. some places will get hotter and some colder. The overall world temperature increases, not all the locals.

An example of this is the UK and the rest of North Western Europe.

Despite what it seems like now, with long hot summers that we arent used to... the actual effect are much colder Islands (and mainland) that will adopt the Climate of other regions in the world that are at our latitude.. eg: Siberia and Alaska.

This is due to the amount of extra fresh water in the Atlantic effectively turning off the North Atlantic Drift which brings huge amounts of warm water into our general area from the Caribean. This warm water keeps our winters mild and also our summers... remove it and we revert to the same climate as the other areas that do not have the drift.

VERY cold and VERY long winters and summers not really that much warmer.

I must say that the first 4/5 of your post was of decidedly tangential content, but collapsed into outright and blatant obfuscation with the patronizing "If you think you can understand this stuff you're sadly mistaken; far better if you accept our "consensus" conclusion and spew it in every direction" tack.

BTW-By what measure or method do you conclude that, "Its also a spin to say 'This Glacier is growing, so Global Warming as false' "?

The last bit is downright confusing.

Strange, though, that the "consensus" sees great odds of a global-warming crisis going critical if we don't act, yet fails to speculate on any volcanic activity which might have the opposite effect...what if we have a string of volcanic events, and it is then discovered our efforts to counter Global Warming have been so terrifically effective as to over-compensate, plunging us into another Ice Age?!?!!?

[Rat Faced]

BTW-By what measure or method do you conclude that, "Its also a spin to say 'This Glacier is growing, so Global Warming as false' "?

The last bit is downright confusing.

Strange, though, that the "consensus" sees great odds of a global-warming crisis going critical if we don't act, yet fails to speculate on any volcanic activity which might have the opposite effect...what if we have a string of volcanic events, and it is then discovered our efforts to counter Global Warming have been so terrifically effective as to over-compensate, plunging us into another Ice Age?!?!!?

I tried to explain..

Some places will get colder, due to Global Warming.

Therefor if you pick a Glacier that is in an area that will get colder, then you must expect that the Glacier may be getting bigger.

Its incorrect to say "This Glacier is getting bigger, therefor Global Warming isnt happening", its pure spin.

If you look at all Glaciers, and most of them are getting bigger, then you could possibly have an argument.

The National Geographic reports:

Most of Earth's 160,000 glaciers have been slowly shrinking and thinning for more than a century as the climate warms up from both natural causes and human activity.

But scientists say the melt rate has accelerated dramatically since the mid-1990s, which was the hottest decade in a thousand years, according to data from ancient ice cores and tree rings.

Notice its not "Human Activity", its a combination.

Its not "All" its "Most".


As to teaching...

The Environmentalists think it has to be taught as if we're kids... ie: Teach in a way that the "Rule of Thumb" gets through (Primary School type of Teaching, easily understood but not strictly correct at all times), if everyone follows the Rules of Thumb then most people would be helping.

They are then flumuxed by the ones with a vested interest showing things that aren't "Rule of Thumb"... such as a Glacier thats growing, whilst neglecting to mention the 100's that are shrinking for each one that is growing.


As to the remainder of your Post... do you buy Household Insurance?

The amount thats required for investment is probably a lot less per person, yet what they're fighting to protect is worth so much more to you...

Hell, a lot of the technology is already there... its just getting Big Companies to use it (Reclaiming the heat to make electricity/carbon dioxide to process), and making it affordable for everyone else (such as Micro-Generation).

[j2k4]

As to the remainder of your Post... do you buy Household Insurance?

Of course...however, your move to analogize "Household" and (what you are now required to define as) "Environmental" insurance suffers the fatal flaw of it's inherent municipal/state/federal/international liabilities, each with a distinct geographic/fiscal/legal set of claims on your pocketbook.

The other scenario is a public record of a private contract.

The difference in the numbers of words contained in each of the preceding constructs may be properly construed as an exceedingly modest attempt to indicate the basic and essential wrongness of your fateful effort at literative device, Rat.

The fact is, the only entity not currently weighed-in is the international contingent, which brought us that little gem what goes by the name...Kyoto.

I don't honestly know how other countries handle their perceived enviro-tithe, but here, I figure we pay enough inside-the-border that our porous Ship-of-State leaks more than the rest of the U.N. gives on purpose (according to the U.S. government, I'm sure you'll find).

BTW-I've changed my mind about the U.N. vis a vis Bill Clinton; go ahead and make him Sec/Gen of the U.N.

It's only right that you the rest of you get an assful of him, too.

[GepperRankins]

seriously, you can stand on a used smack needle and catch aids if you think i'm reading all that.

i'm no super awesome scientist, but ermm, don't the andes glaciers work on a totally different system than the ones we're worried about? aren't they in a part of the atmosphere that simply doesn't hold heat well because it's sort of really thin?

i mean like sea level glaciers melt because ermm the atmosphere round there that does hold heat is getting less time to cool down because of the ozone layer caffuffle.

[GepperRankins]

No, no, no-read S. Fred Singer; and spend some time in the TWTW archive.

I think his credentials outstrip Gore's, as well as most others you'll find.

Stossel is for beginners.

"... S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon."

to be honest

[GepperRankins]

SEPP's critics offer the following rebuttals to its claims:

* The satellite record shows that warming is occurring. As of mid-2005, the rise is between 0.085 and 0.26 degrees Celsius per decade, depending on which satellite record is used. (See Satellite temperature measurements.)
* Computer climate models are reliable, and predict past temperature history quite accurately. [6]
* The weather pattern in a particular year (e.g. "in July the Antarctic experienced the coldest weather on record") does not imply anything about longer-term trends.
* Scientific evidence indicates that recent global warming is caused by human activity. Even Patrick Michaels, a well-known "skeptic", has said: it is "proven humans are warming the atmosphere" [7]. (See Attribution of recent climate change.)
* The ban on CFCs did not cause any substantial economic harm, and has been effective. Increases in surface UV are inferred, see ozone depletion.
* Primary scientific data was collected in Punta Arenas, Chile, using a Brewer spectro-photometer.
o [8]
+ "These results indicate that during the time when ozone depletion in the Antarctica takes place, an increase in UV-B radiation reaching the Earth surface affected the American continent at latitudes about parallel 50o S."

[Barbarossa]

seriously, you can stand on a used smack needle and catch aids if you think i'm reading all that.

[Biggles]

Is this not all a tad academic? Is it not the view that changes that have occurred are pretty much wired into the system and we are going for the ride whether we will or no?

Of course, I am sure J2 will agree that the US is going to cut its emissions anyway, purely on market forces. Only a ninny would put the heating and the air conditioning on with fuel prices at $75 a barrel

[j2k4]

Of course, I am sure J2 will agree that the US is going to cut its emissions anyway, purely on market forces. Only a ninny would put the heating and the air conditioning on with fuel prices at $75 a barrel

Market pressure does have it's effect.

I won't be turning on the air this summer, no matter what.

I cannot speak for the ninnies.

[Biggles]

Of course, I am sure J2 will agree that the US is going to cut its emissions anyway, purely on market forces. Only a ninny would put the heating and the air conditioning on with fuel prices at $75 a barrel

Market pressure does have it's effect.

I won't be turning on the air this summer, no matter what.

I cannot speak for the ninnies.

and, alas, when they speak for themselves we are none the wiser