LOL

I absolutely love how she mentions all of these great ideas that we should embrace. Problem is that they cost too much and no one can afford them. I wonder how "green" her life is and how many electric cars she has. I have been involved in "green" construction. What a collosal waste of money both in the initial construction and in future maintenance. Such a simplistic view.

To those of you saying the free market can't play a role in some way, look at the companies she cites. Problem is she is flat wrong in her assertion, they are not embracing "green" ideas because they are worried about GW, they are embracing it because they want their image to be "green". That, is the free market taking hold of the hysteria drummed up by the MSM. Say it long enough and just about anything can be considered valid.

The best thing about it is how she mentions that the problems are due to THIS president. This, even though nothing substantitive was done under the great Goreacle. Give me a break.

Please stop this nonsense and get back to the weather.

This website gives good knowledge about weather

All through school were taught the science of how the climates on our planet are constantly changing on a natural basis. This is one of those climate changes that has been going on for centuries. And if this is global warming why is the temperature thru out the midwest below temperature averages. Its funny how a global warming brainwashing of the uneducated is under way with a lot of people looking to benifit financially. Its a shame because the taxpayer will pay eventually.

Actually, green buildings cost roughly 5% more than the traditional buildings. This has been observed and documented in various cities that have recently completed green building structures.

Sounds like your construction project had cost over-runs due to the the various other factors that plague most projects: poor management, poor process, or poor planning.

The interview highlights the fact that most politicians are using GW to further thier own agendas. Blame this administration? what about all those others for the past X years? We are in a warming cycle on the planet right now. Arguably,
man has had some effect on the cycle. How much is
anyone's guess. Scientific proofs are rampant on both radical sides of the issue ( if it even is an issue ). The so-called scientific proofs are mostly selective, short-term examples. with only opinion or career biased interpretations. there is NO scientific consensus. Let's listen to all sides, not just the media darlings and the political hacks. I personaly have never read a really plausable explanation of the beginning and end of the major ice ages. Human intervention sure didn't have any influence then. Sun emperatures, tilt of the polar axis, variation of the earth orbit. What else comes to mind when local short term agendas are not considered?

Mark:

Not sure where you get the 5% value. I know of multiple buildings where the costs for building "green" are at least 25% to 50% that of building conventionally. And no, not all of the costs are related to the "poor" items you mention.

Beyond that, there are many things required in "green" construction that are flat out inefficient relating to both structure and space. And, many of the materials needed to conform to the "green" standards do not perform well. This leads to premature problems from normal wear and tear. The result is high maintenance costs. Eventually, the free market and technology willsolve the issues and current "green" construction techniques will be acheivable. Problem is that the standards will change, become stricter, and the whole process will start anew.

Laura: Here's a good one for the group to ponder.

Dave

Bill ties climate to national security
Seeks assessments by CIA, Pentagon
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | April 9, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The CIA and Pentagon would for the first time be required to assess the national security implications of climate change under proposed legislation intended to elevate global warming to a national defense issue.

The bipartisan proposal, which its sponsors expect to pass the Congress with wide support, calls for the director of national intelligence to conduct the first-ever "national intelligence estimate" on global warming.

The effort would include pinpointing the regions at highest risk of humanitarian suffering and assessing the likelihood of wars erupting over diminishing water and other resources.

The measure also would order the Pentagon to undertake a series of war games to determine how global climate change could affect US security, including "direct physical threats to the United States posed by extreme weather events such as hurricanes."

The growing attention to global warming as a national security issue could open new avenues of support for tougher efforts to limit greenhouse gases, according to specialists.

"If you get the intelligence community to apply some of its analytic capabilities to this issue, it could be compelling to whoever is sitting in the White House," said Anne Harrington , director of the committee on international security at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington. "If the White House does not absorb the independent scientific expertise, then maybe something from the intelligence community might have more weight."

The measure, sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel , a Nebraska Republican, and Senator Richard J. Durbin , an Illinois Democrat, comes as other international bodies are taking steps to designate global warming as a high international priority.

I refuse to listen to any argument about gloabal warming until those who "know" it is mans fault explain why the Martian ice caps ARE ALSO MELTING!

Scource: Time Magazine July 2005

Kenn Gordon

Chuck: "I personaly have never read a really plausable explanation of the beginning and end of the major ice ages." That could only be because you haven't looked. Google is your friend. Key word: Milankovitch.

Kenn, Google could be your friend as well. Just search on Mars + global warming and you'll find the information (along with a bunch of denialist misinformation, but I'm sure you need no help spotting that).

Laura,

Most people do not have a good understanding of physics or the scientific method and therefore easily dismiss skeptics which hold the most important position in science in that they establish whether a finding is actually true or not. Simply making a statement that sounds correct or getting consensus is not science at all. Why do you think skeptics are harassed and believers honored? There are many questions that are not being answered by those who claim AGW is fact. There has been little or NO attempt by the AGW crowd to eliminate plausible alternatives. If you know of any please let me know, but I have few myself that I'd like you to take a look at. The scientific method is a solid methodology for finding the truth about thoughts or observations. It requires us to be skeptics. Perhaps you can answer a few questions that I have about GW.

1. What contributes to GW?
2. How much does water vapor contribute to GW.
3. I have heard that Water Vapor is ignored when predicting climate because humans do not add any water vapor and therefore do not contribute to it's forcing, does this make sense to you?
4. With CO2 at 380 ppm, how much does it really add to GW especially compared to water vapor?
5. What causes Ice Ages?
6. If we were to predict the next one based on the frequency of past Ice Ages, when would it occur?
7. Based on what we know about Ice Ages and their frequency, are we in the warmest period between Ice Ages?
8. Are you surprised that the end of the Little Ice Age was also the start of the Industrial Revolution?
9. Have sea levels ever been above what they are today?
10. How much CO2 do Humans produce every year?
11. How much is created naturally by the Earth?
12. What is the standard deviation when determining CO2 levels in the past?
13. How would you go about figuring out how much CO2 contributes to GW?
14. What are your thoughts on Milankovitch cycles?
15. With your knowledge of physics what would you conclude, CO2 levels rise and fall as temperatures rise and fall or temperatures rise and fall as CO2 rise/fall?
16. Will Kyoto or any other plan prevent GW or Ice Ages for that matter?
17. Which is a bigger problem, an increase in 100 ppm CO2 since the end of the Little Ice Age / beginning of Industrial Revolution or the population going from 800 million to over 6 billion?
18. Are we really paying attention to a real problem in GW?

These are a few of the questions I have when thinking on this subject. No one has adequately answered any of them. I have done research on much of them but would like the opinion of an expert. If you would answer as much as you can I would be very thankful. I honestly think AGW is bunk based on my understanding of physics and the scientific method, however my understanding my be flawed and you can help me figure that out.

Best regards,

Steve

hey kenn, i got it...maybe all of the co2 we are generating is acting like a giant mirror and causing mars to heat up...or maybe we are acting like an exhaust pipe into our solar system and mars is collecting all that co2 and rapidly heating up...dont believe it can happen? well look at what we did to venus and all its excess co2...i dont think it is too far fetched to suggest that we "know" the technologically superior martians unlike the venusians have solved their excess co2 probably cause they instituted laws like, "if you want a canal with a view you have to buy carbon credits equal to one months pay"...lol at the AGW nincompoops!!!

Kenn:

Clearly the fault lies with the all wheel drive vehicles that humans, specifically American humans, placed on the surface. If not for the fact they are just driving around, I guess they were contaminated with excess, human produced, CO2. The results are clearly what would be expected. I'm certain that the Goracle will be relating this latest tragedy in the near future. Of course after depositing a ton or two of CO2 into the atmosphere and buying a couple of carbon credits to cleanse his soul. I mean he does have some ownership in the CC company.

Well, there's something mentioned in the video that should be of concern, even if you think GW is not being caused by mankind. It's the fact of desertification.

This is a link to have a look at what it is, and what causes it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

And this is the website of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD): http://www.unccd.int/.

I thought it was important to highlight this problem that not many people talk about these days.

Emiliano

Steve,

I think I can answer q3. Human activity contributes to an elevated water vapor production through expanded surface area exposure to sun and air. This would be from damming of rivers, or any other water containment, eg swimming pools. Then there's water use for lawns and gardens and crops ( irrigation) This is a significant forcing of additional water vapor. Couple this with the spreading heat island effects through materials such as asphalt and concrete, you have a possible problem. If as Sen Inhofe believes that co2 is a fertilizer then we are over-nourishing vegetation. The faster and more lush growing plants are intensifying transpiration which is water vapor. So the argument can be made that not only are humans increasing water vapor but the effect is significant with possible and in my opinion more important consequence to global temperature than co2 alone.

thor...if, if and butts were candy and nuts what a merry xmas we would have...unbelievable how you can come up with a water vapor problem caused by co2 and quote no less a politician as someone credible to listen to...tell me something, thor, exactly what is the increase in surface area related to mankind building swimming pools and lakes and what is the volume of evaporation increase in context of the amount of yearly precipitation and cloud cover increase worldwide? dont forget, that many surface water accumulations and evaporation rates fluctuate seasonally...also, please include the net solar heat reflectance caused by your water vapor increase...if i were to read between the lines, it seems that you AGW proponents are realizing that co2 concentrations are a miniscule part of the heat trapping equation...now look at that great big ball of fire in the sky and you may begin to understand that small changes in its output can cause warming and cooling here on earth as well as solar orbit, earth's wobble, oceanic currents, volcanic activity, ect...all of which are natural and have sound correlations to changes in the earth's temperature recorded in the geologic record...urban heat island effect has raised worldwide temperatures?...give me a break...

Thor,

That's nice.

How about questions 7, 10, and. Especially 10 and 11. All the research I have done shows that the Earth produces about 210 billion metric tons while humans produce between 5 and 7 billion tons. We are adding about 2 to 3%. Big whup.
If you take a look at Ice Ages over the last several thousand years you will see that we are in the warmest period of a 100 thousand year cycle. Milankovitch did some wonderful work that shows how the orbit, tilt, and wobble of Earth can explain this phenomenon. Sea levels and temperatures have been steadily rising for 20,000 years. Another thing that concerns me is that solar variation is given such a small role in GW. Solar radiation was high during the Medieval warm period and low during the Little Ice Age and now is high again. Coincidence? It is possible. Could the world be doomed? Sure. But I have not seen any evidence that CO2 is such a strong factor in GW. People have said that the rising and falling of CO2 increases the temp. Henry's Law says CO2 levels rise and fall with temp changes. I am not saying that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be some or all attributed to man, I am saying that there is much more evidence that the temp increases are natural and not caused by man. Another thing that puzzles me is that CO2 levels were at around 180 ppm at the height of the last Ice Age and has been steady at about 280 over at least over the last 1000 years (with a slight dip during the Little Ice Age - Henry's Law) yet we have had warm periods and cool periods within that same time frame. CO2 did not cause the Medieval Warm Period and it did not cause the Little Ice Age. I cannot find any evidence that it is causing the very slight warming trend we see today.

Thor,
Steve & Laura,

Here is a question,

The ice caps are melting, the earth has always been in a constant state of change but a meteorologist can't seem to even give a completely accurate 5 day weather forecast for any midwest town.

Why then should I choose to believe a growingly large group of people who are afraid of change in the earth but really don�t know what the ultimate outcome will be?

Have you seen the bit about the 40 mile wide mega-volcano discovered at Yellowstone?

What should man do, build a 40 mile wide air filtration system, encase Yellowstone in it and wait 5 to 500 years for the kaboom and cross our fingers that we designed it correctly?

All the while the U.S. goes bankrupt because every major corporation has been sued and is out of business because of an exponential number of emissions laws have been created that they violated before the emission law was ever in place? Mean while China sucks the U.S. dry of manufacturing because they have no restrictions on greenhouse gasses and emissions, invades our country because China chopped all of its trees down and needs more and we can do nothing about it because all we have to fight back with are squirt guns. A real gun releases too much CO2 when fired and it violates one of many U.S. emissions laws.

I'm going to Al Gores house to swim in his Natural gas heated pool. ($2400/month utility bill...aka....fosil fuel?????)

Steve,

Of course you can't see the evidence of slight warming. The picture is too murky. These variables are not in isolation and that's the problem scientifically. It's not evinced; it's deduced! So we deduce a what most likely is a little warming...at present

Sam

You actually expect me to quantify those, otherwise, tell me something I don't know.

Brian,

The issue here is not the involuntary emissions of volcanoes or exhalations, it's the voluntary emissions of humans and to what extent we try to curtail that. eh perhaps voluntary is not the right word as our primitive ancestors used carbon fuels to survive.

Sure, the science could be wrong. When it comes to the science of weather, we make predictions based on imperfect models. The models are based on recorded data of various sorts (historical and natural), our knowledge of the laws of physics, and observation. If our predictive powers were 100% accurate, we wouldn't call them predictions. We'd call them foretelling or prophesy.

That said, our predictive powers have become pretty darn good, especially at the macro level and long range level. We can pick up on patterns and trends. The patterns and trends point to global warming. The why seems best explained by an increase in carbon emissions. The increase in carbon emissions is best explained by human activity. Could this all be wrong? Certainly, but the probability is that it is right, or at least mostly right.

Imagine a group lost in the desert with a single canteen of water. For some unknown reason, the canteen is losing water, although whether thru natural evaporation or a leak it is initially hard to say for certain. Thru observation the majority of the group determines that it is probably a leak, and that the best course of action is to stop and figure out a way to fix that leak. However, one of the group, the guy that owns the canteen, denies the validity of the evidence that it might be a leak, and wants to press onwards.

"We cannot afford to stop. You leak believers are just being alarmist. And since I own the canteen which holds our shared resource, I have the most say."

The others in the group say, "If we continue losing water at this rate, we will not be able to make it out of the desert. If we stop and fix the canteen, we will at least have a chance of survival. Already it may be too late, but at least we might have a chance."

I'd say that in this case, as in the case of global warming, the group is right. Why should we accept the strong possibility of extinction just because the canteen owner has his own agenda and refuses to look at the evidence in front of his face?

I've something else. While the majority of people accept the high probability of global warming, there is a disproportionately high number of deniers posting comments on global warming related websites. We already know that the petroleum industry is trying to buy scientists to support their agenda. Is it that great a leap to guess that they are paying people to post comments on websites?