No volunteers to save the world

Business leaders are reluctant to sacrifice short-term profits to avoid long-term risks because they know if they do, the stockholders will throw them out. The ones who are calling for government action are doing so because they cannot do it unilaterally. "Market forces" will not let them.

Ya know this entire global warming scare reminds me of the terrible Y2K catastrophe that befell our nation and the entire civilized world just a few short years ago. Remember how awful that was, we barely survived! Wait, oh right nothing happened.
Isn't there any bandwagon you folks don't jump on?
Another point I need clarification on, just a bit ago it was called global warming, now its called climate change. So is the earth going to warm up? Are polar bears floating away on chunks of broken ice? Are the ice caps still melting at an alarming rate? The words climate change has me all confused.

pauls: Yes, it's clear you are confused. Sigh. Anyway, you don't believe humans are affecting climate. Your opinion, not that of the relevant scientific community (unless you want to include Senator Whack Job Imhoffe's 400, which we and others have written about). Anyway, the Bush admin. seems to prefer climate change but why do you care? The problem with global warming is that folks who don't understand the science think that means things should be getting warmer all the time. In fact it implies that there will be more extreme weather events. But that's science. I don't want to get you more confused. Regarding Y2K, the folks that had us most hepped up about it were your friends the bankers. And frankly, maybe they were right. Did it ever occur to you that all the effort that went into coping with the Cobol problem may have forestalled the consequences? No, I didn't think so.

Pauls, I work in the IT industry and ya wanna know why we didn't have a major problem at Y2K? Because people in the know sounded the alarm, a hell of a lot of work was done behind the scenes, and your utility companies and your financial institutions were ready when it arrived, that's why. You'd have been the first person in line screaming bloody murder if your bank account had gone haywire because everyone had said; "Oh, Y2K, pish tosh."

You might say "global warming" is the popular term and "climate change" is a little more descriptive. Think of it as a redistribution of the Earth's climate, with a few nasty side-effects like seawater acidification thrown in for good measure. And it's starting to look like it may be too late to prevent it from happening, thanks to denial-caused delays. Now we're down to damage control and discussing some extreme remediations that we'd rather not have had to consider.

The words climate change has me all confused.

The terms "Global warming" and "climate change" are still used pretty much interchangeably, but in some circles "climate change" is preferred, because there are a lot of willfully ignorant buffoons out there who think that if it snows anywhere on earth, "global warming" has been disproved.

Sad to say, there's probably no terminology that'd satisfy someone who seriously believes that there's a legitimate comparison to be made between the YRK scare and decades of climate research that's been checked, re-checked, and peer reviewed by thousands of scientists from around the world, the basic conclusions of which are accepted by every single one of the relevant scientific bodies in the US and abroad.

But of course, those experts don't actually understand their own field....you're the one who really knows what's going on, 'cause you remember Y2K.

That's a bit little arrogant, wouldn't you say?

I spent 6 years of my life working the Y2K problem and 75% of it was nonsense. Yeah we all clapped each other on the back when the clock struck 1 second after midnight on Jan. 1, 2000 and the world didn't end. Right, I don't believe humans are affecting climate to the degree that you do. I think Gaia works in cyclical, although mysterious ways.

PS:

Are the ice caps still melting at an alarming rate?

As a matter of fact....

Yes.

They.

Are.

Please do try to keep up.

Even a homeostatic system can be pushed out of its tolerance bounds with sufficient force. (The Gaia hypothesis posits homeorhetic dynamics, so it's not inconsistent with massive anthropogenic climate change, but I think you were just speaking figuratively rather than invoking ecologic models, no?)

Arguing is pointless. Anyone who still believes we have not affected climate change is beyond help. May I suggest a couple of mindsets. Deliberate ignorance because of stupidity, it affects their wallet, or gullibility. The last is listening to someone else, who attempts to persuade his readers/listeners there really is nothing to worry about. Through lies, misinformation and skewed statistics, the perpetrator informs the gullible that what we are seeing falls within 'normal' parameters. When actually, it is his own bottom line he is concerned about. We should feel sorry for these poor misguided cretins. They will be the ones buying ocean front property in low-lying areas.

So Pauls, you were writing updated code or something and you think 75% of the problem was nonsense, eh? That makes you one of the mushrooms. I know one of the original code-writers, the guys who wrote the early COBOL stuff for an insurance company you'd recognize. They never suspected that code would still be in use when those extra bits would become necessary but what do you know, they just kept getting reused in new modules as memory and processing power became functionally unlimited. He wound up testifying before Congress and he said about was 2/3 nonsense which is not far from what you said. But he said the remaining 1/3 was economic catastrophe-in-a-can if it wasn't fixed.

And that has - what, exactly? - to do with climate change?

Not arrogance, I call it skepticism, and I don't even pretend to know what is going on, but I sure as hell know that YOU don't know whats going on either.
And if this forum of scientists is a subset of the thousands of scientists that did the decades of study and peer reviews of climate change, then my skepticism grows larger.

From No Oil For Pacifists (a blog):

Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom Harris of the Canadian consulting firm Natural Resources Stewardship Project in Monday's Canada Free Press:

"In scientific circles, CO2 is referred to as a ?trace gas? that, for hundreds of thousands of years, has remained at or below five ten-thousandths of the atmosphere by volume. Even among the so-called ?greenhouse gases? (GHG), CO2 accounts for less that 4%, with water vapour being by far the most significant GHG. CO2 is clearly a minuscule component of the massive mechanisms that create climate and cause climate change.
At 385 parts per million (ppm) by volume, CO2 levels are now, in a geologic sense, at their lowest in 600 million years. For example, during the exceptionally cold Ordovician glaciation, about 440 million years ago, CO2 levels were more than ten times higher than today. At other times, warm temperatures occurred when CO2 levels were high. During this period, there was no consistent correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. When, in more recent millennia, a correlation appears evident, temperature changes before CO2. Aside from forecasts of still primitive computer models, modern climatological research consistently shows that there is no scientific justification for the CO2/climate hysteria that has so gripped mass media and politicians.
Attempts to maintain the focus against CO2, a colourless, odourless benign gas essential for plant photosynthesis, have become truly ludicrous. Incredibly, CO2 is branded by many as a ?pollutant? ? the continual references of Al Gore and Senator Barbara Boxer to ?global warming pollution? are prime examples.
Nigel Calder, former Editor of New Scientist magazine, refers to much of today?s global warming, anti-CO2 movement as ?Medieval environmentalism?. Such alarmists, Calder explains in the film The Great Global Warming Swindle, embrace climate change dogma, saying to themselves, ?Let?s get back to the way things were in Medieval times and get rid of all these dreadful cars and machines.? Calder says that for extremists, CO2 is ?an emblem of industrialization?, something they oppose with a passion."

I don't even pretend to know what is going on,

Of course you do. You pretend to know that Revere has jumped on a "bandwagon." And you pretend to know that climate science isn't settled enough to warrant serious concern from intelligent people. And you pretend to know that Timothy Ball is credible, which is the biggest laugh of all.

That's not being skeptical; that's being gullible.

Well let's hope you're right, Pauls. Evidence says otherwise, but heck, we might get real lucky.

Attempts to maintain the focus against CO2, a colourless, odourless benign gas essential for plant photosynthesis, have become truly ludicrous. Incredibly, CO2 is branded by many as a pollutant

Have you ever heard the expression; "The dose makes the poison"?

Nigel Calder, former Editor of New Scientist magazine, refers to much of today?s global warming, anti-CO2 movement as ?Medieval environmentalism?. Such alarmists, Calder explains in the film The Great Global Warming Swindle, embrace climate change dogma, saying to themselves, ?Let?s get back to the way things were in Medieval times and get rid of all these dreadful cars and machines.? Calder says that for extremists, CO2 is ?an emblem of industrialization?, something they oppose with a passion."

Yeah, Calder's conspiracy theories about the motivations of complete strangers are much more credible than peer-reviewed science.

Attempts to maintain the focus against CO2, a colourless, odourless benign gas essential for plant photosynthesis, have become truly ludicrous.

Gee, if CO2 is essential, then obviously you can never have too much of it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to swallow a whole bottle of pyridoxine, and wash it down with eight gallons of water. If a little is good, lots more must be better!

Sheesh.

Everyone keeps forgetting that Co2 levels were MUCH higher in the past and the temp was MUCH higher as well. But thats not the problem. Methane is hugely more dangerous to us as is the CO levels. Temps rising in the water mean that methane hydrate could be released as methane gas in the trillions of cubic feet. Suggestions are that it has happened before.

This is the reason that I can only ascribe to parts of the Revere and others present. Its a snapshot and based upon only 150 years worth of data. Its also based upon that the only effect could be man and I aint buying that. We add another 1.5 billion people in the next 20 years and this will be a moot point regardless of what we do if its just man intervention.

Otherwise, sit down and enjoy the ride. Remember, with the approval of the Congress it was Nixon who created the EPA and not some liberalist group who think or thought this or that at the time. Its time came and if there is nothing we can do then its time is gone.

Phila-Co2 is absorbed into the oceans and by the box load at that. You can see it in every lake, pond and river. Its those little bubbles that come up for no explainable reason. The area out off the coast of CA is loaded with methane vents and again its way more dangerous than Co2 would ever be... Its a huge greenhouse gas. How come we never hear about that little tidbit?

Not politically expedient is why. But thats methane and it was laid down in sediments and not created by man so we cant possibly attribute it to that... Nope. Cant be anything BUT man. Again.....sigh, we must be delusional.

Here is a headknocker for you. The Russians say that we have leveled off and the temp is going to start dropping and rapidly across the next 10 years. Want to bet on who is right? I wouldnt for the simple reason that Revere COULD be right, but I doubt it. I think we will be freezing our tails off in 2010.

"You can see it in every lake, pond and river. Its those little bubbles that come up for no explainable reason."

No, those are usually oxygen bubbles from photosynthesis in algae and pond-weeds. Very explainable.

The rest of your post exhibits similar rigour and understanding.

And a single day was too much already. The point I do not understand - from a German perspective - why on earth did he get a second term?

1. Thankfully Americans aren't German.
2. Phila- CO2 is essential. Let me know how that pyridoxine thing works out for you.
3. Decrepitoldfool - I'd suggest you read the article before commenting on dosage.
4. Phila - I know the debate about global warming and human activity is on-going. I know it has not been settled, that it is not yet the truth as you so wish it to be.
5. Revere's original post is not science, it is political. Hence the bandwagon remark.
6. I find Mr. Ball much more credible than anyting I have seen posted here.

Business leaders are reluctant to sacrifice short-term profits to avoid long-term risks because they know if they do, the stockholders will throw them out. The ones who are calling for government action are doing so because they cannot do it unilaterally. "Market forces" will not let them.

Posted by: OriGuy | January 28, 2008 6:29 PM

I think OriGuy hit the nail on the head! With business it always comes to the health of the bottom line first. It has to for them so they can stay in business.
Dave Briggs :~)

Dear All,
I would consider "global warming" a legitamite concern if the people who espouse the dangers would be honest with the public.

Please read Al Gore's book, "Earth in the Balance". I read this book during Mr. Gore's campaign for the presidency and was not impressed. The first three chapters were practically unreadable and I thought to myself, "how could this have gotten past the editor?" I almost put it down, but then the book quickly shifted into text that only a scientist could have written. I could not find evidence that Mr. Gore has given sufficient credit to the authors of these chapters.

On "60 Minutes", weekend before last, they re-aired a program about glacial ice melt in Chile. The story sounded reasonable, until the moderator said that the Chilean glaciers have volcanic ash on and in them. Hmmmm, heat plus ice equals water. Chile has a huge range of volcanos, most inactive, but one or two still going strong. New lakes and rivers are formed by the ground warming under the ice. There was not one mention during the program about the active volcanos. I had to consult my atlas and then get on reliable web sites to find this information.

During this search I found a new study states there is evidence of a volcanic range beneath the western portion of the Antarctic.

The most efficient producers of carbon dioxide are animals, especially mammals. I haven't heard, yet, that anyone is suggesting there are too many people breathing and we need to get rid of a few. I think it would be fun to know how much carbon dioxide is emmited by the city of New York due to human respiration.

Love,
Library Lady

Dear All,
Sorry, typo on "legitimate".
Love,
Library Lady

Phila- CO2 is essential. Let me know how that pyridoxine thing works out for you.

Pyridoxine is a form of vitamin B-6. It's essential to life, but harmful if you take too much.

The fact that carbon dioxide is essential is irrelevant. First, because something that's benign or healthy at one concentration can be harmful at another. Second, because the fact that it's essential has no bearing whatsoever on its contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Revere's original post is not science, it is political. Hence the bandwagon remark.

That claim only works if you're arrogant enough to assume that the scientific consensus on which the post was based is definitely wrong, or very likely to be wrong.

Let's be clear about this. People here are arguing that mainstream, peer-reviewed science is correct. You're arguing that it isn't. But you've really offered no evidence for your stance, beyond the claim that CO2 is essential (duh), and the fact that Nigel Calder dislikes environmentalists (so what?).

I find Mr. Ball much more credible than anyting I have seen posted here.

No, you find him more credible than all the thousands of scientists and organizations who disagree with him, even though you've made it clear that you don't even have an intelligent layperson's grasp of the science.

That's exactly why I called you arrogant.

FYI, Ball's a "skeptic" about evolution, too. Do you find him "credible" on that point as well?

Library Lady:

The most efficient producers of carbon dioxide are animals, especially mammals. I haven't heard, yet, that anyone is suggesting there are too many people breathing and we need to get rid of a few. I think it would be fun to know how much carbon dioxide is emmited by the city of New York due to human respiration.

Do you honestly believe that the many thousands of scientists who've contributed to our understanding of climate science have all somehow overlooked the fact that CO2 occurs naturally? And that they need to be reminded about it by you?

All you need to understand is that in previous centuries, CO2 emissions and absorption were pretty much balanced. The combination of rising industrial emissions with lowered absorption (e.g., due to deforestation) is throwing things out of balance. To put it very simply, we produce CO2 faster than the biosphere and oceans can absorb it.

It may also interest you to know that we can actually tell the difference between natural atmospheric CO2, and CO2 released by burning fossil fuels and forests. If you're curious, you can read all about carbon isotopes at your local library.

My skepticism increases when I read this (from scienceblogs.com/clock/ an interview with James Hrynyshyn a freelance science journalist who was a presenter of Gore's slideshow):

Why did you decide to omit some of the slides?

The full slide show takes almost 2 hours to present. As only someone with Gore's charismatic talents can hold an audience for that long, most of us presenters have to trim a bit. I simply eliminated any slide or series of slides about which there is significant uncertainty among climatologists. For example, Mt. Kilimanjaro makes for a great intro to glacial retreat, but there is considerable debate out there about whether it's an example of global warming induced retreat, or some other regional cycle. Similarly, the possibility of a halt to the thermohaline conveyor makes for great drama, but it's hard to find a climatologist as worried about that as most of the rest of the subjects in the presentation.

This guy omitted slides that were debatable; caused by global warming or some other cyclical phenomena. He admits it.
Next question:

What did you learn by listening to people in your audience?

So far, I have learned that the younger the audience, the better the questions. Older folks only come to see the show for two reasons: to feel part of a larger movement, or to beat a dead horse of pseudoskepticism.

You got to give him credit for being honest with his dishonesty, I'll give him that. First he omits slides that might lead one to become skeptical and then he complains about 'older' folks being skeptical. He certaily doesn't want his younger audience to become the least bit skeptical so he omits slides. The guy can only teach (brainwash) kids and he even badmouths his allies in the older generation. Tad condescending but oh well they are his allies. Oh he's also a marine biologist by the way.
Is this how science works? The fact that there is still debate is that simply an inconvient truth?

phila - read what Dr. Ball says in the article; he is not simply claiming that CO2 is essential. Your dishonesty is quite appalling and really not worthy of a response. There is no science in Revere's orginal post. It is an anti-Bush political rant. Just because an article includes the words global warming and climate change and its politics agree with your own does not make it a scientific article.

pauls: It was a science policy post and part of the commentary was anti-Bush. Duh. You showed up because you wanted to complain about what I said re guns. OK. If you want to be a political troll, though, don't bother. There are plenty of people here who disagree with my politics but manage to be constructive and friendly. They are allowed to rant and complain and much else but they still don't have a problem being a part of the community. You are welcome here but try to enter into the spirit of it. This isn't a democracy, it's a blog.

Revere - I had no idea you were the same revere. Says editors who sign revere, figured there was more than one. I showed up initially to the school killing post because I was directed to it from another blog. I am not a one issue guy, I'm interested in lots of things. Guns, potatoes, climate change, etc. are just some of those things. I thought I was being friendly, well as friendly as I could be, after all phila is a bit snippy too ya know and a might rude to me and others. I missed your chastising phila. It is your blog and I understand it is not a democracy but when your original post is heavy on the political side and very light on the science side, you should expect political criticisms. As for me, I tend to agree with the Bush administration because I don't want government more involved with business then it absolutley has to be. So if business takes the steps to solve or help solve the climate change problem, IF it is a problem and is caused by human activity (I am not convinced - I think humans get too much credit) then so much the better. Less government, good weather, everyone wins (except perhaps the consumer because we don't yet know the hidden costs).

pauls: How many reveres there are is a closely guarded secret. I don't mind political pushback. I get it here all the time, in great volume (Randy/MRK and I have never met so I am not completely sure he is a real person and not a printing press). Everybody gets snippy around here sometimes and it's allowed. I often reply in monosyllables because I am desperately short of time. I am, in fact, a practicing scientist with several plates full of things to do, but I/we maintain this blog because ... well we don't exactly know why. But we do. The politics of the blog are left wing but commenters come from all over the political spectrum and are most welcome. Argument is allowed, even encouraged, but there is a certain underlying vaguely defined comity that I hope for from regular visitors (I can't control the drop ins and the trolls, hence my comment; I don't yet know which category you are in. Contrary to the things that drew your attention, we mainly do science here, but often we add a political slant. It's what keeps us going.).

Anyway, you are most welcome and to argue if you wish. You'll find others here who agree with you as well as many who don't. But sometimes there is no more to be said and the thread just is over, not because I cut it off (I almost never do that) but because there is mainly noise and no signal.

I don't think you have thought this through. Your facetious remark of improved temperatures argues you acknowledge that they are coming. So what happens if the temperature does go up? The bottom line will be YOUR bottom line. Higher temps may mean a pleasanter local environment for you but, it will wreck havoc on nearly every other facet of life.

In just the US:

Sea level rise will lead to coastal flooding in low-lying areas on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and along most of the Gulf of Mexico. Warmer temps not only melt ice they make water expand. You get a double whammy. Massive migration as water rises. Loss of real estate, loss of crops, loss of habitat for wildlife. This may not seem important but interrupting the flow of nutrients, inactivating the natural cleaning of water systems means you don't get to eat your favorite fish any more. Less food for you means more hungry people everywhere. Do you think those people who are hungry are going to have money to spend on your products?

Glacier melt will lead to severe water shortages in most of the West. This leads to not only thirsty people, it leads to fewer crops and animals. California will be particularly hard hit. You know where your carrots come from? Most come from the Salinas Valley in California, same place you get broccoli and salad greens. It is almost at sea level and, it is already running out of water as is the rest of California. It enjoys a fairly unique climate, say bye-bye to cheap carrots.

Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense Since all of our ports are at seal level, what do you think it will cost to move them? More intense storms fueled by warmer oceans mean an increased ferocity in wind speed. What do you think will happen to the insurance industry if it is hit every year with cat 4-5 storms coming ashore? And what about other more intense storms? Tornadoes, storms like the ones that have been hitting the Pacific North West over the last few years? 100 mph winds along the coasts of Oregon and Washington. This in turn causes gigantic mudslides. All of these things cost a lot of geld. Someone has to pay for it or infrastructure and trade are interrupted.

Higher temps mean we get some really fascinating new diseases. Malaria and other mosquito-borne illnesses will rise significantly. Health care costs will subsequently rise. Higher tempes also means we get more insect types and depredation. Farmers already see fewer freezes and higher winter temps have a much larger pest infestation in the following spring. This means more pesticides. ipso facto you will see a rise in cancer deaths, birth defects, etc.... Who is going to pay for the rise in health care?

The bottom line here is we are screwing up every hydro process. And though you may not be paying for it except in increased summer cooling, someone is already starting to see those changes occur. Food costs rise, health costs rise, infrastructure costs rise, insurance premiums rise, and you have a lot of very unhappy people and, less productivity. If you knew this was going to happen don't you think it would be wise to do something to ensure it didn't? If you are still unsure then it is time you stopped listing to only one person in a sea of experts who have convinced virtually everyone else you and your expert are wrong. Do your job. Do your own investigating but before you do take off your filter. Forget you immediate bottom line and consider your long term financial security.

thanks revere but I must address one last note to phila:

I don't believe library lady was addressing her comments to
"the many thousands of scientists who've contributed to our understanding of climate science". I think she was addressing them to the readers of this blog. I don't know where you learned that rudeness contributes to debate but you need to unlearn it.

"I don't know where you learned that rudeness contributes to debate but you need to unlearn it." This, coming from the same guy who wrote, "Isn't there any bandwagon you folks don't jump on?" That's some high horse you're riding, Mr. Lane.

oh come on that wasn't rude it was damn funny! and it was directed at the revere(s) who understood the barb.

Good poker players often fold hands that they're 95% sure they can win. They fold because the pot odds aren't good enough; they're being challenged to bet more than the pot times the chance of winning is worth.

Right now, we're being asked to make a huge bet, to wager large swaths of our inhabitable planet, and all we stand to win is a few more years of wasting fossil fuels. Even if we were 95% sure that climate change is an illusion, we would still not bet our farmlands on it.

It's time to fold the fossil fuel hand and live to play another game.

Even if you don't "believe" 100% in climate change, you can still save energy because it will make us less beholden to foreign powers, or because it will save you money, or because maybe you will need that oil to make the plastic for your heart valve replacement someday.

I'm tired of this "do you believe" debate.

Dear Susan,
You are absolutely correct. Often, after doing my own research, I find statements by some proponents of global warming untrue or misleading. I would rather rely on facts, thus my Chilean glacier/volcano example.

To Phyla,
This does not mean that I do not care for the enviroment. I turn off lights. I try to save heat by closing the blinds and putting on an extra sweater. I run my diswasher only when it's full, same thing for laundry. I drive my gas-efficient car only when necessary, and combine errands into one trip. I reduce, reuse, recycle. I shop at flea markets, auctions, and thrift shops, because I do not mind re-using, and it's fun.

I feed the birds and deer in my yard. I plant trees wherever my yard can hold them. I treasure the "volunteers" in my flower beds. I care for the African-American cemetery next to my home. I sew for my grandchildren. I am writing a book. I take my Mom out for a "play day" and take my father-in-law to dialysis.

I am a recovering cancer patient. Science and my doctors, family and friends, and my faith have all helped me deal with cancer. I love science. I love life. That's why I'm prepping for bird flu.

Phyla, please settle down, don't make assumptions about people, be nice.

Love,
Library Lady

Shannon-But the point is that whether man created the gases or whether its a natural cycle. If the temps warm the deep ocean the methane will be released from the sea floors and it will just get worse. 1.5 billion more people will ensure that this happens. That to me makes it a natural cycle. When it does warm nature by its own processes will eliminate at least 1.5 billion or more via drowning, disease, starvation.

To coin a phrase, "Welcome to the party, Pal." Anyone who tells you that this is going to change because of some legislation is on crack. Ever looked at the federal code relating to the EPA. We have thousands of regulations and we enforce them. The places that are GHG monsters are not here in the US. They are in Asia. They make enough for everyone. We impose something thats an economy killer such as carbon taxes and the like, the businesses will simply move to Asia where there are no regulations. Kind of like saying we are going to comply, but you dont have too because you are an emerging nation.

So IMO you either ascribe to the story(s). Global warming is man generated. Global warming is a natural cycle. Global warming is a myth. Global warming is a fact and we are all gonna die.

Pick one.

The LL is very well versed in this. I can definitely say that many key factors in this have been ignored both pro and con. I havent seen anything other than the fact that this COULD be a natural cycle. If a Dem gets into office and pushes legislation thru and they are wrong, then they will be shown the door and the laws rescinded. If they are right they get to be pollution heroes. The people though will have to endure yet another economic burden just to live until the dust settles. Tip over? Maybe, but again if its man generated we are going to be history. So accept what might happen, as well as what might not. I remember in the 70's they said we were going to be freezing by the 90's too. LL probably remembers.

To me if its man generated, do nothing. Let nature take care of the problem by natural selection.

Phila - I'm shocked! Shocked! that you misled me. Perhaps you need to read this:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/02/15/y…

Please do try and keep up.

Pauls lane- you do know its winter in the northern hemisphere, right?

Randolph- everyone forgets that in the past we didn't have 6 billion humans running around the world, terraforming it, changing everything from the local ecology to the sides of mountains, and yet you throw out the "oh but CO2 was much higher int he past" argument? Please come back when you can make a logical argument.
p.s.- see you in 2010.

This is an older report (from the Pentagon) but I don't remember ever hearing about it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

There still seem to be some vehement "global warminng deniers" in a rising sea of scientific consensus. Ignoring their motivations, it is more interesting to focus on one general, perhaps overly simplistic point.

If on average the planet is warming one might tend to expect the number of receeding glaciers to increase. If on average the planet is cooling one might expect to see the number of expanding glaciers increase. If on average, planetary temperatures are staying rougly the same, might expect to see little change in the numbers of expanding or retreating glaciers in relatively recent times.

You hardly have to be a climatologist or spend too much time searching of the internet, even if you possess only minimal scientific/technical training, to discover there are very, very few glaciers expanding (perhaps one or two in one part of Antarctica, possibly caused by measurement error or shitfing West Wind Drift circulation?).

Will those who advocate that global warming is not occuring please direct me to the additional numbers of advancing glaciers that I seem to be missing in my count. Right now, it looks by my hardly exhausive count, one could count the number of possibly advancing glacier on one hand, without the use of a thumb.

The evidence from glaciation seems rather overwhelming to me and the potential repercussions from loss of melt water rather alarming considering how quickly they are disappearing at a time freshwater sources are under increasing strain due to increasing human population sizes.

Might there be ANY reason to suppose that the disappearance of glaciers throughout the world is a sign that no climatic changes are occurring or that if global temperatures fall, glaciers will retreat rather than advance? I have never heard anyone suggesting this. If so, what would be the scientific basis for such statements? Perhaps I could be educated by those so vehement in their criticism of the current scientific consensus.

I would love to stand corrected with respect to this fairly simple general observation on the debate as a whole. Clearly, those who feel so strongly that its "all a hoax" or ">50% hype" must certainly have something to say on this point.

guthrie - did you read and comprehend the article? If I understand you correctly then, global warming only affects the Northern Hemisphere in summer? Yes that would make sense.

S.G. Poss - see http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
Based on this it appears your point is quite over simplistic.

JayOne - Mr. Marshall probably has Pentagon plans that haven't somehow been leaked to the British press about detailed defense plans in case the U.S. is invaded by aliens from another world. It is his job.

Well now here's an idea, John Coleman one of the founders of the Weather Channel has suggested that Al Gore and others be sued to PROVE once and for all what they are saying. Selling carbon credits. Give me a break. Does anyone really think that some guy sitting SE Asia is going to pay a carbon tax?

No, they are going to be aspiring to live in a big house loaded with all sorts of things that were harmful to the environment (maybe) when they were made. He is going to jump off that bicycle and crank up that Mercedes or a Yank Tank guzzling several thousand gallons of gasoline or diesel a year if he can and he is going to run that A/C wide open during the 110 degree days in the boonies.

Cynical? You bet but the pendulum is starting to swing on GW and of course Al and the GANG are starting to change their tune. The new one? Global Cooling is caused by Global Warming. Funny, it would seem that they had to cancel the winter festival in NH this weekend. Why? Too much snow. Couldnt park in the parking lots and the third major storm in four weeks was rolling in.

I dont discount what Revere and others say, I just want them to prove it undeniably and not sit back and say we are global warming deniers. It is warmer. But now it would seem that we are cooling off and fast.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

Now here are a bunch of guys that WOULD discount what Revere and others are saying...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

For me, I would like to just remain open minded. Weird weather is a fact of life. Stick around if you hold to your story either way, you'll eventually be right.