Nobody This is the VERY reason Bush refused to sign the Kyoto. There has to be something done, but bankrupting the USA is not exactly in our countries best interests. The USA is one of the greatest countries on earth in trying to eliminate Green house gases and be responsible. We are not doing a very good job but folks just cutting back or buying footprints is A Joke. It has to be stopped. That is the key to curtailing global warming. Anything else is like the Democrats demanding we withdraw from Iraq and talk to the terrorists. We can talk till the planet succumbs to global warming or we can do something about it. Doing something does not mean Defending (Cuts) it means attacking (new technology and new means of energy) Attack, Attack, Attack

kritter Nobody- It means giving up our McMansions, hot tubs and turbo-charged SUV's. You first.

lthomas I've already given up my Suv. Don't own a hot tub. Got rid of my gas hotwater heater and replaced it with hot water on demand electric heater. I buy gasoline with ethanol in it. We recycle paper and aluminum and run nearly all 13 watt florescent light bulbs. But my little bit is nothing. Its not even an inconvience to me. We really do need to adapt to new fuels and by doing so it would relegate the Middle east Irrelevant. Sorta like Africa. They have nothing anyone wants so who cares about them.

lthomas The Canadian government has published its strategy on climate change, which acknowledges that the country will not meet its Kyoto Protocol commitment. Its new target is to cut emissions by 20% between now and 2020. Environment groups have labelled the strategy a sham, and say that when combined with industrial policies, the country's emissions could rise. Canada is the first nation to publicly abandon its Kyoto target without leaving the protocol.

lthomas Many other nations inside the protocol, such as Spain and Ireland, are a long way from their own targets; and the Canadian decision opens up the possibility that others will follow suit and choose not to meet their commitments. Kyoto had good intentions but they placed on each other something that could not be realistic. Only Bush and the USA along with Australia understood this right off the bat.

Interested

2 kritter Nobody- It means giving up our McMansions, hot tubs and turbo-charged SUV’s. You first.

Did you write that with a straight face Kim? Well at least we're not Gor... sitting there with a jet idling in the background preaching about being eco-smart. Or - even better, sitting on an airport tarmac - getting a $200 haircut while other planes had to circle until Clint... the presidential haircut was done. Or - even better than that, flying in your private jet to a distant country to speak out about conserving natural resources. Coincidentally the same individual ownes this little puppy. http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/assets/travoltas_house.jpg

Travolta's house is the ultimate boys' fantasy home made real. Aside from the parking lots for the brace of jets, there is a garden in the guise of a heliport, further parking for at least 6 cars, a swimming pool with hot tub, a 1.4-mile runway, a gym and stables for the 75 horses down the road.

Here, a nice view from a bar window. http://www.feng-shui-tips.net/free-feng-shui-newsletter/images/travolta2.jpg

An accomplished pilot, Travolta flies his Boeing 707 jetliner into St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport every few months. He comes here for religious services at the Church of Scientology's spiritual center in downtown Clearwater.

awww, that's nice. Heart touching. Okay, so you were saying about who first?

kritter Well if anything is to change- we'll all be giving up something- but they expect warming to hit the poor the hardest- Not too surprised about that. "Did you write that with a straight face Kim?" Well, since you're Interested, actually it was a bit of a smirk:8

Interested

Well if anything is to change- we’ll all be giving up something- but they expect warming to hit the poor the hardest-

Finally, a coherent one that's easily followed. Your right, it will - mainly Africa followed by similar spots around the world - following poverty as it were.

C Stanley Since this is a site with calm, rational people, I'll ask the question to see if anyone can answer. How is it that we feel so sure that reducing CO2 will reduce climate temperature, given that historically the rise in CO2 always follows the temperature rise and decreases in CO2 levels always follow decreases in temperature? I understand that even if CO2 isn't the only cause of warming, that it could have some effect to increase warming, but I can't find anyone who can show me any evidence that it does (in other words, since the evidence all shows that the CO2 changes follow the temperature changes, then how can we assume that the CO2 changes are driving temperature at all, rather than the other way around?) And please, if you want to try to answer this, don't give me the standard line about consensus among top scientists. That's not the kind of answer I'm looking for; what I want to know is, has ANYONE seen evidence for CO2 actually causing a temperature change rather than just being correlated with it? It really concerns me that so far I haven't found an answer to this question, because I don't see how or why we should base all of our environmental policy on something that could very well be incorrect. I realize that as a lay person there may be some highly technical answer to my question which I'm just not able to understand, but what bothers me is that even when people try to explain the science (like the website realclimate.org, for example) they still won't answer this question. Their answer seems to be "just because the temp change comes first doesn't prove that CO2 isn't driving temperature up further". Well, yeah, I get that, but what I'm asking is: is there any proof that it actually does that?? I'm all for seeking alternative sources of energy for a whole host of reasons and certainly I don't have any stake in Big Oil or any other reason to be a "denier". I'm just not the kind of person who accepts science as dogma, I have to understand it first and it really disturbs me that no one is addressing this most basic question in a way that makes any sense to me. Plus, just the fact that the answers are so evasive suggests that there is a huge amount of politicization of the issue rather than scientific analysis which should welcome questions and welcome people playing devil's advocate.

kritter Well, let me be the first to say that I yield to climatologists on this one- I'm not one, and I'd garner that neither are most of the commenters here. A certain amount of politicization is probably necessary, as with any other cause, to get people to act on the scale that they will need to , so I do understand that to some extent. Its fine with me as long as the information being used is factual and the experts are sincere and qualified on their subject. But I'll plead ignorance on the CO2 question.

Interested i personally feel that if we can reduce an overall amount of emissions than we are most likel headed in the right direction. im talking dioxide. monoxide. all. for in my limited knowledge i cannot see any manufacturing process that does have emissions can be healthy at all. i do not think we should target gas x. i think we need to target gas a-z

C Stanley Well, that's pretty much how I feel about it too, Interested, but I just don't get those who've accepted that CO2 is the major pollutant without questioning the reasoning there at all.

yonason I have to stop putting so many links in that my posts get delayed, or whatever happens to them. I'll break this up into parts and hope for the best. The fact is, humans are NOT contributing in any significant way to global-warming. DURKIN'S "THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE" WATCH IT http://novakeo.com/?p=860 OR DOWNLOAD FOR LATER http://www.novakeo.com/news/video/global_warming_swindle.rm

yonason Human contribution to greenhouse gases is roughly 0.28% of the total. Even if we reduced them to 0%, we would accomplish NOTHING OF VALUE. Oh, wait, actually it doe$ accompli$h $omething. It relieve$ you of your exce$$ ca$h. http://tailrank.com/1665427/Belgians-Ban-BBQ $o what $take do Al Gore and the other global-warming $cam arti$t$ have in promoting their brand of GWOT (Global War On Temperature)? Come on, take a gue$$. I've given you plenty of hint$.

yonason THE ANSWER IS . . .

"Environmentalism: Gore's carbon footprint may be the size of Godzilla's, but he eases his conscience with 'carbon offsets.' He buys them from himself. And every time someone else buys them, Big Al gets richer." http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=258075474834657

That's right, he "buys" his carbon offsets from ". . . Generation Investment Management LLP, a tax-exempt U.S. 501(c)3 corporation. The chairman and co-founder is Al Gore." Can you say "con artist?" How about "snake-oil" salesman?

yonason NOW BACK TO THE (non)-ISSUE OF CO2 (I OF II)

"Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change." http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

also see: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_contrib.html

yonason NOW BACK TO THE (non)-ISSUE OF CO2 (II OF II) and . . .

"Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, . . . "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant." http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0

yonason FINALLY, HOW DO CURRENT CO2 LEVELS COMPARE WITH PAST?

"Changes in the carbon dioxide level over millions of years do not correlate with temperature increases, even though CO2 levels in the past have been 20 times as high as today’s. “On the time scale of hundreds of millions of years, carbon dioxide has sharply declined; its [CO2] concentration was as much as 20 times the present value at the beginning of the Cambrian Period, 600 million years ago (Berner, 1997). Yet the climate has not varied all that much, and glaciations have occurred throughout geologic time even when CO2 concentrations were high” [1]." http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-4/p4.html

see, also: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

yonason When we let others define the debate by limiting the information, we allow them to control the conclusions. It doesn't matter how shrewd we are, unless that means we can spot what we haven't been told. But if we haven't been told, and the info we are given is self consistent, how will we know? Why do you think the climate warmers want to silence their critics? If their critics data isn't correct, that will be clear. The only reason to invoke censorship is in order to deceive. Get as many of the facts as you can, and trust no one who tells you the last word has been spoken, whichever side they are on.

domajot CS and Interested- What precisely is the scientific proof you are looking for re co2? It would be a rare surprise to find someone scientificaly qualified to understand the question or evaluate the answer on a blog not geared to that expertise. Maybe you are looking in the wrong places? It is really unfortunate for all of us that global warming and the invironment have become political, rather than scientific, subjects for debate. For the scientitsts, the only ones qualified to settle the co2 business, the debate is over. All that's left is politics, and by now, it's pretty clear that everything has to be debated along party lines in this country. Too bad for us. Generally, I'm all for scepticism. Not being a scientist, much less a climatologist, though, I put much more faith in expert scientists than in politicians. I wouldn't go to Congress to have quantum physics explained to me. The scepticism about Gore as the messenger can be understood in political terms, but what is your scientific beef with him? His message is not disputed by scientists, as far as I know. Along these lines, then, I would have to question why so many of the sceptics are aligned with the oil industry. The administration at one point had a staff member whose job was to edit scientific reports on the subject, even though his qualification consisted only of being a loyal Rep. and having a background in the oil industry. The scientists who wrote the edited papers did dispute his judgment. There is a genuine debate we should have about the economic implications. This would be a big, big debate IMO. It looks to me, though, as if the economic debate si being hidden in the folds of casting doubt on global warming (just my personal observation and suspicion). There is a resemblence here to the effort in the beginning phases of the Iraq war to have the war out of sight and out mind, with the public at large unaffected. I always prefer the straightrorward approach. In the end, hiding from the facts backfires. The more there is discovered when it's too late, the bigger the cloud of suspicion, until trust is destroyed all around. PS about the science. The way I understand science, to have dissenters is part and parcel of the scientific process. The majority examines the dissent and passes judgment on its validity. With this ongoing process of reexamination, it is quite possible to see changes in opinion and even reversals. But if we wait for the final word, we wait for the end of eternity. In the meantime, the assessment of the day is what there is.

Dyre42 China's motives are different though. They had no regulations regarding air quality for so long that it has started biting them in the butt via their national healthcare budget.

C Stanley doma, Here's a NYT piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) which quotes a number of climate scientists who dispute Gore's claims (many of whom agree that global warming is real and that it's anthropogenic). Mainly what they're saying is that he's making some exaggerated claims and some that they dispute altogether (I think the most controversial are his claims about hurricanes and about the spread of malaria, as well as generally his claims about the predictions for temps to rise quickly, for sea level to rise, etc). In other words, some of the scientists who want people to see the threat of AGY are not happy with him because they see him as an alarmist who could end up hurting the cause by stretching the inconvenient truth. So, yeah, I'd say there's reason to doubt his science as well as his motives. What I don't understand is why the conservative side is assumed to be twisting the science for monetary motives, but when someone like Gore clearly stands to gain financially from fearmongering over global warming, why isn't his credibility in question?

domajot CS- 1. As I said, it's normal, for any scientific theory to be challenged. That's part of science. But it's also normal for the challenges to be challenged. (Look at evolution.) 2. I don't think either you or I are equipped to evaluate either the theory or the challenges, in this case. So, if you have scientific questions, I don't think blogs or the NYT is the place to find the answers. The NYT just reports on what some have said, just like the press reported on what the consensus opinion was/is. The press has also reported on the Creationists - it's just a report of what some people are saying. 2. As I said, I don't think we can wait until the final word, because in science the final word never comes - it's always a process. In this case, particularly, we are dealing with predictions for the future, and you can't put the future in a test tube. It's all a matter of estimations. So, in the case of Gore, it doesn't really matter much to me whether he is 65% or 99% correct on the particulars. I believe there is now an urgency in the matter, and given the snail-slow pace of developments, I would rather we act now. 3. About the politics, unfortunately the conservatives have boxed themselves in. Had Bush & Co. not gone to such lengths to suppress the science in the past, they would have saved themselves a lot of disparagement today. To the extent that it's unfair today in one direction, it's payback for 6 yrs of unfair yesterdays in the other. That's my view, anyway We'll survive having different views on this, I predict. -- I think it's detrimental to all of us that every single thing is so politicized. Even comments are rated by other commenters more on the basis of perceived party stripes than on the content. I would applaud with gusto anyone who stops this tide, but so far, no takers.

C Stanley

But it’s also normal for the challenges to be challenged.

Yes, absolutely, and I think that the scientists who have accepted the AGW theory about CO2 to be true who question the questioners are completely correct to do so...but to question them on a SCIENTIFIC basis. In other words, if the questioners raise points that might contradict the initial research, then the initial researchers should respond by either saying "good point, maybe we have to rethink this" or "no, I see your point but here's where you've gone wrong in your analysis (or wrong on your data collection, etc). Instead, the initial scientists seem to refuse to address the actual scientific questions in many, many cases that I've seen. They're responses always seem to be "why are you doubting us, we've already established that all good scientists agree with the theory and therefore you are not a good scientist." That is what disturbs me, and if you haven't been reading the blogs then you may not have seen what I'm talking about (and quite a few of these blogs ARE written by scientists whose stated purpose is to explain the theories and help clear up the confusion, but instead of doing so by answering questions they try to expunge doubt by questioning the integrity of anyone who still doubts) I'm not seeking to have a scientist explain the details to me, I'm just asking for any shred of evidence for the central thesis, which is that CO2 causes warming and consequently that reducing C02 in the atmosphere would lead to cooling. It's mind boggling to me that when that question is asked, the response is "well, there's no proof that it doesn't". OK, fine, but if you're basing your whole theory on the fact that it does, then saying that we can't prove that it doesn't isn't quite good enough. I guess it doesn't seem that you're seeing the basis of my concern or complaint; I don't ask for absolutes, just some sign that the theory itself isn't built on a house of sand.

C Stanley BTW, I agree with you doma, that the Bush administration has hurt it's own reputation by associating with creationists. Of course there are people in the scientific community who have nothing to do with the Bush administration or with oil money who also doubt the 'consensus' on climate change, so it's a bit of a strawman to make it all about that.

domajot CS- I did not make it ALL about anything. I was making general and personal observations on some aspects of what seems to bother you. You will disagree on what you see differently, of course. To address All of this issue would require that I suspend my life to research and write a comprehensive thesis. This I am not prepared to do.

C Stanley doma, I didn't mean to imply that YOU were making it all about the Bush administration or ties to oil money; I was making a general statement that when some people do that it is a strawman argument.

domajot CS- Sorry, I read your last comment, before I read the penultimate one. I can only repeat that blogs are the wrong place to seek scientific explanations. I don't know what the dialogue is among scientists, and that's what would count with me. Amateur commentators, especially in this political age, are to be taken with several large grains of salt, IMO. I repeat: neither of us is qualified in the field of climatology. For answers, I defer to those who are. BTW, it occurs to me that the reason some of the doubts are not addressed is that the response is inherently in the majority opinion. When evolution came under fire, it was some time before scientists responded in a point by point way. That kind of response takes time away from work, and addresses issues that have already been covered, in a general way, by the theory itself. JUst a supposition on my part.

yonason "The scepticism about Gore as the messenger can be understood in political terms, but what is your scientific beef with him? His message is not disputed by scientists, as far as I know." -- demajot Please see the links in my posts on that. They clearly show what's wrong with the alleged "science" Gore is pimping. Gore is distorting the science that he presents AND he is leaving out the science that contradicts him. But WHY is he doing it? Again, see my posts. His free money for Gore scam won't work if people can't be sold on his misrepresentations of the little science he does tell us. If you guys keep debating the "facts" that he presents and ignore the reality that he won't tell you, of course you are going to come to the wrong conclusions, or at best be confused.

Interested

CS and Interested- What precisely is the scientific proof you are looking for re co2? It would be a rare surprise to find someone scientificaly qualified to understand the question or evaluate the answer on a blog not geared to that expertise. Maybe you are looking in the wrong places?

Your kidding right? That same standard could be applied to politics, economics, geography, etc. It's a rare surprise to find any experts talking about any subject we discuss here. Why separate out one particular thing when it questions Scientists that cannot agree amongst themselves? The scepticism about Gore as the messenger can be understood in political terms, but what is your scientific beef with him? His message is not disputed by scientists, as far as I know. Other than not practicing what he so much preaches. Scientists do dispute it.

I repeat: neither of us is qualified in the field of climatology. For answers, I defer to those who are.

That, like I said - applies to the entire blogosphere, add in news media to that as well. Which I have to ask, if such a standard must apply and you take it with a grain of salt - why bother reading and or responding?

domajot Interested- "... I have to ask, if such a standard must apply and you take it with a grain of salt - why bother reading and or responding?" ------------------------ Some issues have components that I, and most folks, can observe and understand. I read and comment in hopes that someone responding to me will add to my understanding. I've been successful very seldom and in tiny degrees. It's mostlyy 'I believe' in black and while. The exercise, though, sometimes clarifies my own thinking. I admit, then, that I do it for selfish reasons. In the case of co2 and climatology, it's way over most bloggers' and commenters' heads. I certainly don't know what proof would be necessary to satisfy a scientific prognosis. It's not something I can observe or form an impression about. I defer to other scientists to ask the questions and answer them. I'm sorry a differing slant is so irksome to you.

Interested

I’m sorry a differing slant is so irksome to you.

No, I just don't see the usefulness of tossing anyone else's thought process out the window on this one particular subject as saying we're not climatologist, without applying the same standard to everything. Politics, economics, et. all. is over most peoples heads, yet we all - including you - comment on it.

C Stanley What Interested said... And also, some of us have varying degrees of interest and background in science. I don't claim to be a climatologist but I'm interested and have a working knowledge of some of the issues involved. I have read up and certainly understand the greenhouse gas concept and I understand the point that CO2 doesn't have to be the prime or initial cause of warming for it to be significant. But since I do have some basic understanding, I'm also seeing things that aren't adding up and I'm disturbed by the bait and switch and ad hominem arguments that are made by scientists who are purportedly trying to clarify the issues. Basically my reading of it is making me MORE skeptical and I'm disputing what some of you seem to accept, that there is such a firm basis for the CO2 models that all scientists who aren't tainted have accepted them. That assumption is based on the idea that one side is politicizing while the other is merely exaggerating a bit. The actual situation as I see it is that both sides are highly politicized and the science overall is being corrupted.

domajot To each his own. We just see this whole area differently. My overall position remains: Science is different from say, politics or art appreciation. Economics is different from both. Each area involves a different process, a different language and a different formulation for questions and answers. IMO, the lines of questioning are being blurred. This is different from politicizing the answers or the messengers; that's a separate issue. For me, the question has to right before we get to the rest of it. I believe the question itself has become political and mirrors very much the evolution debate. You think I'm wrong. I'll follow this, and if I'm proven wrong, I'll change my opinion. In the meantime, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Interested

You think I’m wrong. I’ll follow this, and if I’m proven wrong, I’ll change my opinion. In the meantime, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Sorry, but I think it's a short way out without being able to discuss it. and at the same time short circuiting anyone elses discussion on it. I still don't understand what or why you will suddenly classify one thing as below our level of knowledge while engaging in the same converstaion yourself, and not applying apparently any level to other similar topics. How climate affects the world is indeed a good question and can affect the world from year 1 to year 10. how economics affects the world can be a more foreceful question, affecting the world from month1 to month 50. How politics affects the world can alter the world from day 1 to day 2.

domajot Interested- Okay, I'll try one more time to make myself clearer. 1. The effect of economic decisions can be observed, once they're put in effect. We can then debate which policy or condition is responsible for which effect. 2. Global warming can not be observed in the same way. Which models of the past are the best predictors of the future is a highly technical field and has been adjusted several times. The ordinary person is not qualified to judge the models. As I certainly am not qualified, I choose to rely on a scientific consensus. It is in the nature of science that, as scientists keep working at it, the modeling and the predictions will be adjusted several more times. Even without the particulars, the consensus is that the future holds serious dangers and that the time for action is now. I believe that. 3. Over the past decades, I have observed a certain pattern. The first occasion was when the first reports pointing to a health risk in smoking came out. Imnediately, scientific-lookling sceptical reports sprang up, questioning one detail, casting doubt on another. It took years to overcome the negative effects of this pseudo-science. Important health policy decisions were delayed because of this activity. Not all the effects of doubt are negative. The exercise of debunking pseudo-science can work to toughen the rigor needed to formulate and refine the theory. This methodology of doubt has been operating consistently. If a local factory is polluting a river, a report will spring up to cast doubt on the scientific data implicating the factory. Periodically, as with evolution, another scientific theory is put through the same wringer. It's always the same method of nibbling at details, thus casting a pall of doubt on the theory itself. 4. I can't personally test either the theory or the propositions of doubters, I can't know which are examples of deliberate pseudo science and which are genuine scientific inwuiries. So,I cast my lot with the world-wide scientists who have reached a consensus. I leave it to them to deal with those casting doubt again. 5. IMHO, those sceptical about the theory would do well to be equally sceptical about the challengers. I cast my lot with the majority. Naturally, I respect your freedom to think otherwise. 6.. With time, as the science develops and evolves, we will all learn more. In the meantime, we have to choose to etiher act or not act. -------- This is my best effort at clarity. If it's not enough, it's not enough. I'm done.

yonason THE SKY IS FALLING - NOT! "So,I cast my lot with the world-wide scientists who have reached a consensus." -- domajot But there is no "consensus," and you don't even have to be a scientist at all to find that out. http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/03/04/17000-scientists-dissent-no-consensus-on-global-warming/ Dr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, and he says "THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING." If anything, the majority of scientists don't believe humans are responsible for whatever changes may be occuring. http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/Lindzen-NYT2006.pdf Skeptics win debate with believers, & there's NO CONSENSUS http://newsbusters.org/node/11461 Come on, people. THINK, d@#* it! THINK! You have to stop flipping coins to decide which side of an issue to be on, and learn how to think for yourself.

Interested No it still doesn't begin to attempt to describe why you'd target this particular thing and commentators levels of knowledge (while still engaging in it yourself) vs everyday items that are also - just models, just theory. For that's all politics or economics is - just a model, just theories that get proven or disproved at the time. There are countless scientific theories that were disproved over time. Not every contentious one were eventually drawn to worldwide consensus. And even then worldwide consensus items are often self-debunked. Bear in mind as well, that often scientific funds are granted or given higher priority in direct relation to the public interest level in a topic. So yeah - our talking about it is quite important. Why shouldn't it be.