So Laura,

You say "idealists" believe in AGW by man, but "cynics" are questioning is? I can definately see which side you are on and your bias.

This goes too far back for me to offer a citation, but I remember reading an article around 1994 (I think the New Yorker) about how Gingrich was a closet environmentalist. They broke down his voting record and found it more environment-friendly than many Democrats, and they pulled out all these things about his own life (charities he supported, etc) that suggested a commitment to the environment. In short, it argued that--to upend the phrase--Gingrich walked the walk but couldn't talk the talk.

I knew this would happen. The subject of Global Warming is everywhere and politicians (some of them, at least) use it as a way of getting your vote.

Of course, for the conservative part of the country, Kerry's plan is not what you're expecting... and Gringich has proposed something more "adaptable" - or that requires less effort -for the market and people. I think the states in the South will play a crucial role in the next elections, and those states will determine the winner.

For the conservative, one more thing. Conservatives have argued that Al Gore is a "fear-monger"... but, who's telling you that you should be afraid of terrorism? I think it's George.

Both are strategies to fool people... another dishonest attitude that happens globally. In Argentina, they do the same.

If anyone of you thinks that this push twords being green and "eco-friendliness" is not going to hurt the poor and third world countries, I would think again.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article1642746.ece

This is just one example I came across this morning.

Jon

For you believers that humans are significantly contributing to GW, I have a few very important questions for you. Not one person has yet to answer these for me. Laura, perhaps you could shed some light?

1. How much are humans contributing to GW?
2. How much have the ocean levels risen in the past 150 years of industrialization?
3. Record cold and snow this year. Record warmth as well. We are still alive. What is the problem?
4. Are there any other influences that may be causing global warming? (normal climate change).
5. Temperature recordings as we know today began in the 1800's. What about from 1800 to millions of years prior. What is the earths average temperature over this span?
6. Alot of data inserted into climate modeling computers came from the 1970's. There was a grave concern about an ice age coming because the temperatures were so cold then. Temperatures are warmer these days, but are they apocolyptic?
7. It has been warm before. Why?
8. Finally, there have always been droughts and floods and tornados and hurricanes that have not been recorded. Why are we all of a sudden to blame for these? Are they really anomalies?

Alot of medicines and life come from areas of the world where it is warm, damp and humid. They don't come from areas where it is cold and icy. This is not a question, I just wanted to throw that out there. I look forward to your responses.

Jeffery - Not at all. I'm saying cynics believe politicians make decisions and support positions based on what is politically expedient. Idealists believe politicians are acting only for the best interests of those they represent. Both sides of the aisle seem to be coming around to the position that AGW is real. Are they swayed by evidence, or by politics?

Jeffery:

Please cut Laura some slack. She has not really expressed an opinion either way though she may have one. The articles posted have been on both sides of the issue and contain a lot of info regarding the topic and all things related. Not everything is a conspiracy, so just calm down. Whether you buy into the AGW theory or don't, we all just need to bounce ideas around.

Emiliano:

Wow, not even sure where to begin. Comparing terroism to GW is really like comparing an apple to say, a brick.

On the one hand, we have an issue that may affect many people across the globe based upon early projections and forecasts. It should be noted that most of the more severe conditions that could occur are not forecasted, even in the most dire prediction sets for around 50 to 100 years. If an honest, reasoned approach is taken in reviewing these potential changes, it should also be observed that there are many positives in GW for mankind. Most importantly, it should be observed that mankind's ability to project future weather and climate is in its' nacent stages and has been wildly inaccurrate. Therefore, if you are a reasoned, rational, informed, and logical observer of weather and climate, all things related to the presence of GW and its' potential results should be taken with a grain of salt. That is essentially what skeptics are doing.

On the other hand, we have an issue that has directly affected billions of people directly on all continents except maybe South America. We have seen the terrible attacks on innocent people in many countries. We have had major disruptions in travel and the ability to move freely. We have seen the comments of radicals essentially calling all people who do not follow their specific ideals targets. Not just you or me, but anyone who disagrees with them of any affiliation including their own. As a world, we have dealt with these attacks for decades. For whatever reason, they have ramped up their attacks from the late 80's until the early 00's. Whether you like it or not they still exist and are still pressing to attack again. This is not me saying it, they have said it repeatedly. This is a true present daily threat. The evidence is plain and given to us in real terms. Sure there are forecasts about how bad an attack could be, and they have not come to pass, Thank goodness, but their own words and actions show the intent.

While I have not experienced any disruption in my life due to GW, I have experienced major disruptions from Terror. There is no comparison between the two. One is real and one is crystal ball, you figure it out.

As far as the topic, like I have always said, conservatives are concerned about the environment too, they just want a real world answer to solve it not some sort of new government plan to take in taxes. People like Kerry, Goracle, Boxer, Sheryl Crow et al. probably want a utopia, and that is honorable, the problem is they have no understanding of the fact that it cannot be created by using the methods they suggest.

Laura,

What factors convince you AGW is real?

I have seen no evidence showing the changes in CO2 levels that we see today cause significant GW. CO2 levels were steady at about 280 ppm for at least the last thousand years where we have had the Medieval Warm Period, which was as warm as now and the Little Ice Age which was about a degree cooler if the research I read was correct. The Little Ice Age ended and now we are back to about what it was before the Little Ice Age. I can certainly see how one might deduce that CO2 is the culprit for the warming since the Industrial Revolution started as the Little Ice Age ended, however CO2 was not the reason for the Medieval Warm Period MWP, nor the Little Ice Age LIA. CO2 levels dropped slightly during the LIA, but that is readily explained by Henry's Law. If there was a direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature I would expect to see much higher temps today. At 180 ppm the temps were about 8 degrees C cooler. Why then at 380 ppm do we not see temps much higher than the MWP when it was 280 ppm? Why do temps rise and fall along with solar variation? Why do folks dismiss solar variation so readily, yet the same folks will tell you the importance of polar ice because it reflects radiation? This tells me that less radiation makes to the surface, why then would more output from the sun not increase it?

I am not an ignorant person. I understand physics pretty well and the CO2 theory does not hold water. I and some friends are going to erect a massive granite monument to GW. Etched into it will be the names of the believers and the non-believers, both individuals and organization/institutions so that hundreds of years from now our descendents will know who the idiots were and the folks who used sound science to formulate their position.

Laura, your name is going on this monument, which side are you on?

BTW - Mine is going on it too, I do not support AGW. Above are a couple of reasons.

1. How much are humans contributing to GW?

IPCC report summarizes,
"The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 � 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 � 2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates."

The radiative forcing of this anthropogenic CO2 bests explains the rise in global temperature but the trend is only now beginning to rise to the level of significance. As a scientist you might want to wait another 20 years to be really sure, as a human being maybe you won't want to wait given the worst scenarios and the challenges facing you of effecting any real change over the next century.

This is going to be a political judgment call by human beings. Give the complexity of the climate the science data isn't going to be incontestable until way too late (if IPCC conclusions are correct). In my mind, Gingrich's ideas of promoting entrepreneur's by incentives, private awards like the Ansari Prize, etc. are a much better idea at this point. Much better to grow new industries like switchgrass production for cellulosic ethanol, promote green architecture innovations like those happening in major cities, having more enlightened economic policies than to cannabilize old industries like corn or solely rely on regulations.

2. How much have the ocean levels risen in the past 150 years of industrialization?

very little thank goodness. That's not the point. The concern is what will happen in the next 150 years. Even the more conservative estimates would be a disaster for some coastal populations. It may already be too late to do much about that, but our ability to effect change will be so slow that we have no choice but to start now in the hopes we can keep it down to the more conservative changes in the next two centuries.

3. Record cold and snow this year. Record warmth as well. We are still alive. What is the problem?

Local temperature variation is not the issue in more temperate altitudes (except for individual crops). The big question is really what happens to rainfall patterns. A long term drying out of the U.S. bread basket region could be a big, big problem. Make the dust bowl disaster of the 1930's seem like a small problem in comparison,
http://www.usd.edu/anth/epa/dust.html

4. Are there any other influences that may be causing global warming? (normal climate change).

The point of research is to peel out tell tale signs of anthropogenic climate change. That is what the IPCC report summarizes,

"A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems.

Much more evidence has accumulated over the past five years to indicate that changes in many physical and biological systems are linked to anthropogenic warming."

Saying normal is another way of saying slow as in thousands to millions of years slow in one particular direction. The concern here is the time scale is decades. If we are not concerned with the quality of life of our grandchildren, or look upon the loss of species and ecosystems with a long term philosophical look, then sure there is no compelling reasons to stop the direction we are going, the planet will most likely bounce back very quickly after we are gone. In geological time a million years is just a day and thousand years is the blink of an eye. The whole thing will be gone in 5 billion years, what do I care ?

5. Temperature recordings as we know today began in the 1800's. What about from 1800 to millions of years prior. What is the earths average temperature over this span?

tree rings to ice cores, researches have been studying intensely world wide various indirect measurements of temperature change over the past many millennium from the various clues that have been left behind.

6. A lot of data inserted into climate modeling computers came from the 1970's. There was a grave concern about an ice age coming because the temperatures were so cold then. Temperatures are warmer these days, but are they apocalyptic?

Ok, where did you get this scientifically ignorant nonsense? Data collection is an ongoing process.

7. It has been warm before. Why?

When the earth was young it was very warm. There was a lot more methane and CO2 in the atmosphere. Gradually, over millions of years autotroph's changed that, increasing the O2 and drastically lowering the CO2 levels till a balance similar to today was established. Is issue here is not was it warm before, the issue here is the rate of change and what sort of stress that will put on ecosystems and human societies.

8. Finally, there have always been droughts and floods and tornados and hurricanes that have not been recorded. Why are we all of a sudden to blame for these? Are they really anomalies?

Yes, and history shows that for the human beings it pretty much was either devastating or lethal. Heating up a climate is adding more energy that enables these hurricanes to grow much stronger under the right conditions. The enemy of hurricanes it upper atmosphere shear, so it's possible to go for years without seeing the right conditions but then... imagine if the storm that hit New Orleans had been a Category 5 instead of a Category 3. I live in Houston, Rita was predicted to bring 120 mile an hour winds to downtown Houston which is a reason you saw millions fleeing and all the stranded stopped cars on the road. A bit warmer and it's possible it would not have weakened as fast and I would be homeless now. Monster storms are not biggest problem unless you are one those caught in up them. A lot of people in New Orleans now live permanently in Texas. Increasing the frequency of storms are creating major climate shifts make it more likely it will get very personal.

Yes there have always been these things, the point is not to do stuff that increases their frequency beyond the current range. Evidence is suggesting that we may be increasing the likelihood of future major disasters. Beyond lives this puts a lot of economic strain even on rich nations like the U.S.

Darren,

I think when Emiliano mentioned fear-mongering, he alluded to the fear-mongering which took place leading up to the Iraq War. You know, the apocalyptic predictions of a world filled with mushroom clouds and dirty bombs if Saddam unleashed these imaginary WMDs? Talk about taking action without sufficient evidence...*ahem*

But I digress.

I think you can find many parallels with both issues. I am willing to bet that a majority of AGW skeptics, who currently advocate a "thoughful, reasoned" approach regarding AGW, were the same people who told us that Iraq was an imminent threat and that we were risking an apocalyptic catastrophe if we didn't go in there NOW.

Why the "reasoned, thoughtful" approach now but a frenetic, rushed judggement back then?

At least AGW has a huge amount of scientific evidence and real-world observations to back it up. WMDs in Iraq had..."intelligence"...which is - as we now know - the biggest quack science known to mankind.

So yeah, it's not comparing apples to bricks.

Darrren,

I did not say Terrorism is not a threat. If you don't know, the Jewish Embassy in Argentina was attacked in 1994 killing INNOCENT people as well.

What I wanted to highlight was that scaring people is used by both Republicans and Democrats to attract potential voters... each of these parties with different arguments to scare people.

Emiliano.

There is no doubt that this is an important issue for our country or that we need to be responsible and address it with action. When deciding upon solutions, I urge everyone to look at the European Union�s response, as it shows that massive government regulation does not work. The EU attempted to keep its pledge to be the world leader in tackling climate change, only to fail spectacularly. After instituting a cap-and-trade scheme, Europe�s GHG emissions actually rose by 30 million tons. Carbon caps in the US would result in only a small decrease in global CO2 and would have almost zero impact on global temperatures. Newt Gingrich is correct in that the best and fastest way to initiate change is for governments to reward entrepreneurship and reshape the market with incentives to change. We have seen time and again that increased regulation and enlarged bureaucracy (both of which would be the product of a national cap-and-trade scheme) are restrictions to change.

Emiliano:

Well put and no, you did not say that terrorism was not a threat. It is definitely a problem that all sides seem to try to outduel each other at what will be the worst result. It just demeans those of us who at least want to gather decent information about a topic. No, I did not know about the embassy in 1994.

Mark:

I believe that the predictions made prior to Iraq were based upon the best, available information at the time. While you may say that it is a "quack science", I think that maybe you should look at the AGW proponents and their "intelligence" as a comparison. As far as the "huge" amount of science. That's great and all, but please, science has no clue about how to decipher anything on a global scale. It cannot simply because we are looking at a topic where there is no accurate understanding of the start state. Even short term models cannot handle the complexity more than about 3 days out.

I also think that you delving into a bit of revisionist history. An 11 year delay in taking action in Iraq is not really rushing into anything. Oh, and by the way, the "intelligence" you refer to came from, among other sources, none other than the previous administration and the UN. I believe the vaunted Goracle even mentioned it from time to time during the last couple years he was in office. Was he lying then or now, you tell me. I really want to get into the WMD thing, but won't.

I digress, as well.

So let me get this straight...I supported going on the offense (after waiting 10 years and giving the bad guys many opportunities to resolve the situation) to wipe out a threat that actually killed people and terrorized this country too quickly based on what you call fake evidence and you would have rather waited another couple of years so that it is a bigger problem. And you support changes in the socioeconomic structure of the globe for a threat that is based solely upon a theory, is nearly completely devoid of actual verification, has not really resulted in a single confirmed human death, and has suppositions and presumptions of catastrophy as the threat, and I would rather wait ten or so years to gain a better understanding of your "intelligence".

Yep, apple and brick.

Here is the issue as I have come to believe it to be. First, we see politicians lining up based on something I find most disturbing...that is that there is a "consensus" by "leading scientists" that there is indeed Global Warming being caused by all of mankind. That is problematic and should be to ALL Pro Global warming arguements.

Look at the definition of consensus: An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

Here within lies the problem. NO science is good science when it is by consensus. ONLY when the facts, figures, and test results point to ONE definitive conclusion is there good science. ONLY when those same tests can have DUPLICATABLE results are those tests valid. You can have one group using one climate model and another using a different one and two totally different results are found. This is NOT good science simply because changing/removing ONE factor or altering they way one computation is done can dramatically alter results. Believe one model and the consensus is one way...believe the other and it swings back 180 degrees.

So far, there are NOT good facts, figures, or test results to PROVE global warming exists. What there ARE, are "indications" that our planet is warming which is something that has happened over the last 5000 years of recorded history (and millions of years of unrecorded history). The planet has also COOLED as well during those 5000 years of history too, ie. the Dark ages.

If you want the truth about a global warming "consensus", simply follow the money. Global warming is BIG money once the "consensus" is accepted as "good science". BILLIONS of dollars for research, Carbon credit schemes to offset carbon emmitters, fines and lawsuits of carbon emmiters, increases in taxes, etc. are ALL big business!!...and yes, even YOU WILL end up paying for "bad science"!!...a direct result of the BAD POLITICS that come from it.

Global warming is NOTHING MORE than the new religion of those who have lost their causes because their causes too, had been founded in consensus and when proved wrong, the money dried up....at least in this writers opinion.

FACTS....NOT consensus please.

Craig, a couple of comments.

1. Yes, I concur with Gingrich, mainly because increased private sector effects without government regulation will produce the increased savings faster and cheaper than anything the government can do. The only government intervention (in the USA) should be a tax incentive on research.

OTOH, pushing by grant of things like alternates on an industrial scale have a few problems. For example, pushing ethanol production quickly to industrial levels will trigger a rise in food prices as acreage taken out of food production will reduce the amount of supply in the food chain. This amounts to a double tax, first to fund the grants and then extra prices on food.

Another issue, this decades of "extra" heating you speak of starts itself in a colder than normal decade (snow in Miami). Amusingly enough, the scientists who point to a current cooling trend in some of the former GW indicators are dismissed by AGW fans since it took its zero year as an extra hot year (1998). Double standard.

Why is nobody on the AGW side seriously talking about nuclear power? At least in a "mainstream" or "concensus" mode? Great solution using a mature technology that will reduce many pollutants fingered by the IPCC.

2. Even by the worst models, the problem is trivial, a matter of inches at best. This is mostly hype. Yes, islands and waterfront disappear into the sea, but they also build up other places. Locally, millions have been spent to try to stop the very natural "wandering" of the barrier islands to prevent sand from eroding out from under multimillion dollar homes, hotels and businesses. There is a reason why our grandparents and parents didn't buy property or build on flood plains.

3. Related subject would be the agricultural practices that led to the dustbowl which I find your link mentions.

4. And the paper linked here earlier pointed out that using all possible measures, including the few that go back several centuries point to a .5 degree C/century warming trend before and after the Industrial Revolution, which is within the margin of error for the IPCC's vaunted .6 degree C/century figure.

6. This was the point I made above, using the 70s (very cold) as a zero point will naturally produce a magnified delta in temperature if this is a purely natural warming trend. Move the zero back further and it isn't so dramatic.

7. Not quite on topic. You need to reconcile the warming spikes in the early part of this century, the MWP and the earlier one (I forget the name) that accompanied the rise of the earliest civilizations. Since we are talking about (using the clock analogy) the last couple of "minutes" of the last "day", your answer is not relevant.

8. Yes they can be devastating, but a lot more factors than global warming ("A" or not "A") play into that effect. For example, for hurricanes, a lot more "problems" can be traced to more building on flood plains, increased density of population and increasingly shoddy building practices.

Craig,

1. How much are humans contributing to GW?
I didn't ask how much atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased. The question was simple. How much are we contributing to global warming, not CO2 concentrations. Don't give me the they go hand in hand answer. How much warming is directly attributed to mankind, barring all other natural warming activities/cycles? Do you have any numbers? Percentages? Important question, isn't it?

2. How much have the ocean levels risen in the past 150 years of industrialization? Very little is not an answer. Numbers? It is the point! They haven't increased. Al Gores dire 20 foot prediction is ridiculous. Even your UN stated that ocean levels may only rise 18 inches. You: It may already be too late to do much about that. Then what is the point?

3. Dustbowls? Negative on your answer. The Wall Street Journal came out with a report saying that the dust bowl of the 1930's will be comparable to what global warming may cause. Well, if we didn't cause the dustbowl of the 1930's, why would you automatically assume that we may cause this one?

4. A global assessment of data since 1970 has shown it is likely that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems. Your data is only 30 years old. Certainly not enough info to make such demanding changes to humanity, regardless of the scale.

5. Tree rings. Stradivarious violins are the creme de la creme becuase of their wood density. The wood is more dense beacuse of the cold temperatures that the trees had to endure.

6. Nice answer, not. That's the best you can come up with, insulting me? Your conclusions are based on insufficient data. Warm, cold, warm, cold, the earth has been all of this before.

7. Has it been warm before? Your answer is laughable. I wasn't talking about when the earth was on fire. Medievil warming period? Oh ya, you guys seem t