As with all complex problems, we attempt to find simple answers. The chicken little's of global warming take the simple approach that we humans are to blame, and therefore, we humans can fix the problem. Rather egotistical in my opinion.

The parameters I measure this with began with high school and college science courses in the mid-70s -- that the earth's climate is changing and trending warmer. As the earth warms, the polar ice caps will melt, increasing the levels of our ocean and decreasing the land mass. The theory then was that this would serve to moderate warming, and eventually lower temperatures and perhaps even trigger an ice age. Since then we have become much more adept at measuring things -- and graduate students and scientists have probed ancient ice cores, tree rings, rocks, ocean sediment, etc. to measure miniscule and often mundane things. They continue to advance theories based on these new measurements, trying to make sense of a wealth of data points. Sometimes these data points connect, other times those manipulating the data try to pound that square peg into a round hole.

Good science works through trial and error, testing theories until they can be proven, and then moving on to solve the questions that arise in the process of answering the previous question. There has also been a growing trend to sensationalize the problems to attract funding, which opens the door for politics to dilute and distort science.

The trend is clear, the cause is not. And the outcome is equally unclear. There needs to be a lot more data gathered and verified, and theories validated. Doesn't mean we need to ignore the problem. But we need to be very aware of the agendas behind the power brokers in this global debate.

It is amazing how a long ride helps bring my thoughts into focus! [Have to keep some sort of biking link here, right?:p ]

That sizes up my thinking in a lot clearer way than I could have ever hoped to write down. Obviously, I need to be riding further.

Let's begin with a simple fact on which we all can agree - none of us are qualified to determine if global warming is man-made or not - NONE of us. Therefore, we are forced to use LOGIC rather than biased statistics and other useless information we cannot possible understand to determine the likeliness that we are the cause of this obviously very serious situation.

Here's my take:

Most all scientists with a vested interest in our government, or big oil all share one commom thread. They say that global warming is not man-made. There is no doubt about it - global warming is NOT man made.

Scientists with no such vested interest most all have a completely opposing opinion of global warming. They say that it is clearly a man-made situation, and therefore, we MAY have the power to fix/help it.

Again, I don't know the truth about global warming, but I can clearly see which side is backing which side of the argument. That, in itself, is pretty telling to me.

Please do not preach that you KNOW that global warming is man-made, or not. It's quite obvious that there are some scientists with the education to state one way or the other. However, you're not one of them. Instead, just try to follow the money. It's usually a pretty good path to start. :)

... Brad

+1

Here you go ... a massively long Global Warming Bike Tour!

http://www.rideforclimate.com/usa/

There is bright side to everything especially for us optomists. I forsee significant short term economic/financial opportunities. Now the challenge is determining the process/venue to capitalize/participate.

read my page on future of transportation http://funnyfarmart.com/HPVpagetwo.htm

First .... " ... no such vested interest ..." -- really?? Well, 'following the money' one could equally well argue that those who promote the 'man-made global warming' view have every bit as much a vested interest: peer reputation, career security/prospects, success in research grant applications, etc. etc. These kinds of 'vested interests' are every bit as real, and every bit -- ultimately -- as 'financial' as, say, those of a salaried scientist at Shell or Exxon. Put another way, a Greenpeace activist's motivations are just as likely (or not) to be financial. Al Gore is a different kind of example; now that most of us have forgotten that he invented the Internet, he needed a new 'brand' to get himself back into public view. Have to admit (vide: Academy Awards) he's been very successful -- all power to him!

My take:
1. As above, what we have right now is a mass (morass, perhaps better) of conflicting data AND conflicting opinion, some of which is genuinely held, some of which cynically. Seems to me that, in fact, at this point 'we' really just don't yet know whether human activity in/of itself has created a global warming effect.
2. Unarguable (I think): we've done a pretty good job of f----g up our environment in many areas, more or less severely, at least on a local/national level, BUT at least in North America/Western Europe, some regulatory and voluntary measures do seem to be having a salutary effect on this. That, unfortunately, is not the case in the hyper-industrializing nations, like mainland China and India.
3. Also unarguable, I think, is the fact that the 'end of the world' community has an on the whole not very impressive track record in its predictions (others have commented on this above). The fact that 'science' took over the leadership position in this community, superseding religion, has not improved this in the slightest.
Consequently, while I do think that specific measures to address specific environmental problems can and should be pursued at a national/local level, I also think that there is simply not nearly enough evidence, and perhaps none at all, to support the kinds of 'global' measures contemplated, for example, in the Kyoto Accord which (speaking of 'following the money'), for the most part, seems simply designed to dress up wealth-transfer (First to Third World) in yet another set of clothes, thereby supporting the creation and funding of yet another useless trans-national bureaucracy, and jobs for the boys/girls.

Here endeth my rant!;)

I'm not particularly a fan of Al Gore, but to be fair, he never claimed to have invented the internet. This was a deliberate misquote by republican spinsters during the campaign. He did say something to the effect that as a congressman he supported development of the internet, which was true.

Easy, the Earth goes through naturally occurring warm and cold cycles. Archeology has proven this.
The Vikings colonized Greenland during a warm cycle and at the time Greenland had a temperate climate suitable for growing crops to support a substantial population. That’s where it got its name. Greenland was abandoned when the climate changed and the ground froze permanently. It was also used as an example proving Global Cooling or the coming Ice Age scare. Now it's being used as an example of the Global Warming scare when a naturally occurring cycle allows Greenland to become green again.

It was snowing today, so global warming must be a hoax. Riiiight.
n4zou: Yes, there was a warming, and yes there was also a "mini ice age" around 1100 A.D. I missed the coming ice age scare, wasn't it related to a "nuclear winter"? Was there a body of scientific research behind it, or was it a bunch of loons that think they know more than people who spend a lifetime studying earth science? The ice core data is irrefutable: an increse in C02 is going to result in an increase in temperature. Yes, the planet is warming, and yes, it is the result of human activity... this is not my opinion, but that of the International Union of Geophysicists, that all signed off on this in 1999, I believe. If you know something they don't, why don't you enlighten them?

Actually I was speaking of Alaska...

Mars is experiencing global warming too. Maybe the Mars Rover is causing it?

Point taken, JP; I will concede that that clause in my comment on Mr. Gore was unfair, though I stand by the rest. I allowed my irrational dislike of his 'irritatingly finger-wagging but nevertheless incredibly dull' style of oratory to get the better of me. However, now that I think of it, the 'new Gore: Enviroman' does raise an interesting point: in the current climate (oops, sorry!) of debate, it is very difficult indeed to distinguish positions held with genuine conviction from those forming part of a politician's/celebrity's PR toolbox, on any side of a given issue. In the case of 'celebrities,' the main problem of course is that in many cases these bodies are guided not so much by a fully functioning brain as by a thickening of the spinal cord which controls basic motor functions. Mr. Gore, on the other hand, is clearly intelligent, and I think in his case perhaps a combination of both? He/his handlers may well think that he can hitch a ride on this bandwagon and get back in the public eye (as I said, it's worked!) and he may well have some genuinely held views on the issue(s); further, he does seem to be one of those individuals who loves being nanny to us all -- and the environment is of course an issue which provides all kinds of opportunities to (expenses paid) hop on a kerosene-burning jet, fly to a paid forum, and tell everyone else to reduce his/her 'environmental footprint,' then head off to a nice reception/dinner, the cost of which would feed a third-world child and put him/her through primary/secondary school.

Second, and final, rant over.:)

Yep, in the 50s and 60s climatologists told us that the Earth was heading into another ice age. This was based on pollution increasing Earth's albedo and reflecting sunlight back into space, as well as the fact that it's been 10,800 years since the last one and the average interval is every 12,000 years. When the Venus probes found unexpectedly high temperatures there, a formerly-disfavored theory about CO2 causing a greenhouse effect was resurrected to explain them. It was subsequently picked up by a few alarmists here, who noted that CO2 was higher since the industrial age began, and therefore global warming, not cooling, was going to be a problem. It's important to note that it was determined first that there was a problem, and only after that was it decided what the problem was. Cooling? Warming? Both?

To put things in perspective, the current CO2 level of 350ppm is closer to the point where plant life dies off for lack of it (100 ppm) than high levels of past eras (up to 3000 ppm.)

I saw that article about Mars experiencing a warming trend, and that it's of similar magnitude to the Earth's. One thing climatologists assume is that the sun is constant in its output. Considering what we already know about sunspot cycles and Maunder minimums, that's a pretty stupid assumption.

Find a globe and put your finger on Greenland. Hold your finger just above Greenland and rotate the globe counterclockwise. Did Alaska pass under your finger? There's your answer.

+1
Archeology shows no CO2 level correlation to climate temperatures.

Here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94 is a short scientific article explaining why the above quote is not quite accurate. They say that it is much more accurate to say that the popular press was guilty of saying some unfortunate things about an impending ice age. Great thing about realclimate.org is that they present the issue, cite supporting scientific work, discuss non-supporting scientifc work and then come to their conclusion. They then take the further step to answer questions from both people who support their conclusions and those who oppose them. Makes for some very good reading.

wow.. that is actually a really informative site... but I can't help but be cynical and a bit paranoid as to what company or political entity is behind this site... because everyone has someone in their pocket nowadays... so then the credibility would be shot... Any idea?

So, far in this thread I've seen a number of reasoning fallacies: slippery slope thining, ad hominem fallacy, questionable authority, searching for a perfect solution, appealing to emotions, etc. What concerns me most about this debate is what I see as the general public's inability to think about this issue in any meaningful way. As I say this, I realize that the effort it would take to find evidence and arguments that are highly reliable is more than I want to make, and I make part of my living teaching critical thinking skills. The hours one would have to invest to fully understand all of the current reliable data would be quite extensive. If my assessment of the effort needed is correct, I find it easy to imagine that most of what we (we being the collective general population of the plant) "know" about global warming is filled with bad information and poor reasoning. Because of this I take a slightly different stand on the issue. I ask, what damage can be caused by assuming that it is in our best interest to reduce our "carbon footprints"? And, can any resulting damage be avoided or lessened? So, on a personal level, I can take responsibility for this postion by making reasonable attempts to reduce my carbon footprints and encouraging a wider range of consumer options that would allow me to pursue this with more vigor.

On the "about" page they say,
"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions."

So the contributers are not paid, but I don't see any place where they say who pays for hosting the site.

I think that some of us have been saying that the popular press was guilty of saying some unfortunate things about impending climate change. What I want to hear from both sides in this issue is real, fact stipulating science, not colored by lots of emotion laced rhetoric.
I would like to know more about what conditions existed on this planet during the previous interglacial periods and what the potential causes were back then. I would like to know more about what political or economic interests may be fueling both the pro's and con's so that I might make some informed decisions about what I am reading and watching.
I have become very wary of popular catastrophies....ozone layer....nuclear winter.....bird flue....terrorism.....eco terrorists.....the domono theory.....peak oil.....that play out in the media for a while and then fade away in the face of the next impending end of it all story.
Nor can I abide by the naysayers who joke about having beachfront property in New Hampshire.

The words of fear are....could...might...as much as....its possible that....may be......idiots....bull!@#$%.....all of my scientists are right and all of yours are wrong. Remember that there are people out there on both sides of the issue that believe that Elvis lives, flouride is a communist plot, there is a shadow government that rules the world and everyone else is bad.

Watch the responses to this post.

OK- I'll bite. As a scientist, I can tell you that you should never, ever trust the press for scientific reporting. The fact that the various "crises du jour" fade out after a (usually short) time, should tell you something- journalists are in one business only, and that's to sell TV ad time, papers, or magazines. That, and the fact that so many errors slip through the editing process. Some things journalists should just stay away from- the vast majority of them don't have the intellectual equipment to handle solid scientific reporting. And those that do are bound and beholden to editors and a reading public that don't have that equipment either. Sorry for sounding so bitter, but so much of the controversy about global warming (and a zillion other problems) has been politicized by the press.

Anyone around here selling some...well. you know, like some carbon credits. I got the money to buy them and no real manifested reason in my life to do anything but what will generate or utilize carbon credits.

I hear Algore's business is making scads of money on his carbon credit-selling vendors. Hell, he owns most of them. Definitely no conflict of interest here.

+1. Very well stated.

This is the kind of response I would hope we would not get from a scientist. The use of “absolutes” in your argument are most troubling. I don’t think it is accurate to portray journalist with such a broad stroke. Nor, it is correct to say that they have but one business. While there are surely those journalist who are interested in the business end, there are also those who have a sense of ethics that drive a real desire to inform people. Your assessment that they may be “bound and beholding” has some merit, yet it too paints editors and the general public with quite broad strokes. If one were to argue that reporting of science could be better, I would eagerly agree with this. I would also suggest that the general public would fare better with issues of science if they were treated with more respect and fewer assumptions that the information might be too complex for them to understand. Finally, I would suggest that politics, or more accurately the use of power to influence, is an area in which the scientific community might want to invest in gaining additional skills. Just my two cents, and perhaps a knee jerk reaction in an effort to protect friends I know and trust who are journalist with a drive and healthy ethic aimed at informing people in a fair, honest and accurate way. For me the bottom line is that what we know today, is not likely to be what we know tomorrow. We have to find someway to try and keep knowledge availalbe and desired by the general public.

I too will bite . . . as a journalist (just a plain ole country editor from a small town weekly newspaper ;) ), the press is one component in the debate process, and the national media (think CNN, FOX, MSNBC) thrive on the crisis du jour. But journalists are primarily the messenger and the "news" is usually initiated by other parties. The reason the press has the power that it does to shape public opinion is because we are conduits to large segments of the public, and our power is our ability to sway that opinion.

The power brokers understand that as messengers, journalists are seldom equipped to fully understand the subjects they report on. Therefore it is easy to manipulate the process.

It is our job as journalists, and especially editors, is to guard against that manipulation, to make sure the reporters verify facts and work to present as many aspects of a subject as possible. With something as complex as global warming, the media is manipulated by the sources and their reports are only as viable as the sources they have access to. Add to that the tendancy for editors, publishers, and producers to have their own bias.

The public paints the bias in the media with a very broad brush. The bias exists on the individual basis -- we all have our own opinions on which way our favorite newscaster, or local paper leans. To counter that requires the public gather information from a wide variety of sources (just as I instruct my reporters) and not a single network, blog, website, or publication.

PS -- Please do not lump the "press" together. Broadcast news is a very different beast than print news (my second generation newspaper roots showing! :p )

You simply can't compare the two financial interests. The vested financial interest in the oil industry is almost LIMITLESS in terms of money - LIMITLESS. There simply is NO comparision when talking dollars - absolutely none.

Actually there is LITTLE TO NO CONFLICTING OPINION amongst scientists with no vested interest in the oil industry. Most every peer reviewed scientific paper supports only one view - global warming is man made. The only "debate" is happening in the media with propaganda and sound bites. For example, when the government edits Its OWN scientific papers to substantially change their meaning, that's propaganda and self interest at its worst. Again - there is no debate in the (non oil-based) scientific community at all. Again, follow the money .... the LIMITLESS money.

Even if you've bought into the edited government-based reports and propaganda that says "we still don't know", would you not want to err on the side of safety with literally the world at risk?

Do you remember when this government's stance was that GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH? Since that was proven a lie, they now state that it does exist, but we are not the cause.

As Bush would say ... fool me once ... (bumble-bumble-bumble) ... ah, you can't get fooled again! :)


... Brad