digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at physorg.com

Earth in crisis, warns NASA's top climate scientist

physorg.com — Global warming has plunged the planet into a crisis and the fossil fuel industries are trying to hide the extent of the problem from the public, NASA's top climate scientist says.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • venicerocco, on 04/07/2008, -32/+92It's probably time for us all to wake up and do something.
    • aladrin, on 04/07/2008, -43/+10Soon as you have any ***** clue what to do, tell us okay? Nothing has been done because nothing has been thought of that didn't have worse consequences.
      • kieranmaine, on 04/07/2008, -4/+28To name one things, the US could improve emissions but setting better fuel efficiency targets. Europe has higher MPG standards and is in no way any worse for it.
    • doctechnical, on 04/07/2008, -10/+23"When in darkness or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout,"
      • TrevorBradley, on 04/07/2008, -5/+9We can ask, we can scream, at what point do we have to take the gas away from you instead of having you on board voluntarily?
        • kevlarbaboon, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2what gas are we talking about here? argon?
      • yaddayaddayoda, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3Doesn't that jingle end in "Burma Shave"?
    • OwdenBowden, on 04/07/2008, -44/+11In the land of the Blind - The one eyed man is King. There is nothing to do because there is no Global Warming. Yes I said it and I mean it.
      What is taking place is actually - now hold on kids because here it comes - Supposed to Happen. We have only been collecting data on the climate for a few hundred years. This information is not enough to make a blanket statement that their is Global Warming. Furhtermore, If you look back at the sediment layer data and Ice core sample anyone with a brain can see that the layers and Ice layers have minerals and other substances from ALL OVER THE PLANET. This is because every so many years - the Ice caps Melt and the Earth shifts its polar axis. This is what is happening today. Eventually - Ice will melt - The sea will rise and then the North and South polls will now become the East and West Polls. During this process - current landmasses will cease to exist and we just might see the tectonic plates start to realigned forming new land masses while exposing older landmasses (like the fable Atlantis). Face it - you can blame anyone and everyone but this is how the Earth works. and is supposed to happen.
      • venicerocco, on 04/07/2008, -6/+23Thankfully 90% of those involved in researching climate change disagree with you.
        • petrodollar, on 04/07/2008, -4/+15Actually, 99.9%. Global warming deniers have has had decades now to prove their point and there STILL hasn't been a SINGLE peer reviewed study refuting the consensus view.
          • Tape2Tape, on 04/07/2008, -7/+0http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
          • vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -1/+7The conclusion of that paper throws me a little.
            >>
            To explain the observed increase in the global average surface temperature probably more attention should be paid to the changes in the net contribution from the F^0and P^0 flux terms and changes in the global average water vapor content and cloud cover.
            >>

            F^0 is solar irradiance & P^0 is the planet's internal heat. Global average atmospheric water vapor concentration is solely based on temperature and is thus a passive feedback.

            Solar irradiance does directly track historical temperatures; however, the past 30 years have shown increasing temperatures with steady solar irradiance.

            Direct satellite measurements of solar irradiance find no rising trend since 1978, the start of measurements. Sunspot numbers have leveled out since 1950. The Max Planck Institute reconstruction shows that irradiance has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.

            http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/sola ...

            An increase solar irradiance would warm all layers of the atmosphere as there would be more heat radiating through all atmospheric layers back out to space. An increased greenhouse effect would reflect more heat to the surface, thus warming the lower atmospheric layers and cooling the upper atmospheric layers. The second case is what is being observed.

            That would leave the planet's core putting out more heat, which would have the same effect as increased solar irradiance - even warming of the atmosphere; which is not present.
          • Tape2Tape, on 04/07/2008, -6/+0The previous poster wanted a "SINGLE peer reviewed study refuting the consensus view". The study concludes that "the runaway greenhouse effect is impossible", and to me that sounds like a refutation of the consensus view. It gets tiresome reading over and over about how there isn't a single peer-reviewed paper blah, blah, blah... when there are plenty. I guess I shouldn't have bothered posting as one could easily guess the response; It's wrong and doesn't count.
          • petrodollar, on 04/07/2008, -1/+5lol, do you dumbasses even know how to read? Go read the last paragraph of the paper just posted above and explain to me how it does anything but confirm the consensus view.

            "has not been considered in the above correlations. During
            these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance
            and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant
            secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming
            episode must have another source."
          • petrodollar, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5"The study concludes that "the runaway greenhouse effect is impossible"

            "Runaway" greenhouse gas effect is irrelevant here. That is an entirely different subject whether human activity is causing global warming. ""Runaway" refers to the concept of feedback loops, when hypothetically the warming reaches a tipping point that causes even faster, more extreme warming beyond what the mere buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere would be expected to cause. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Pos ...

            In other words, that study does not refute the consensus view at all. It accepts that warmining is happening and that humans are causing it. The only debate here is over the extent and rapidity of warming, not its occurrence or its cause.

            So no, you still haven't found your silver bullet piece of scientific literature that refutes the consensus. So sorry.
          • Arrhenius, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Peer-review is only a starting point. On other, less politicized fields, marginal papers in obscure journals are just forgotten. But deniers don't know how to tell the wheat from the chaff, and will enthusiastically jump on anything that tells them what they want to hear.

            RealClimate on the Miskolczi paper:

            This paper is more nonsense of a piece with the unpublished manuscript by Gerlich and Tseuschner, though with the difference that this one is published in an obscure Hungarian weather journal rather than not being published at all. The main use of this paper is as an exercise in "spot the errors" for a grad student in radiative transfer. We could comment on it, but on the whole it’s more worthwhile to spend time commenting on things that have passed review in the more major journals and don’t have such obvious flaws. - raypierre

            I’d start with his assumption (g) which I have never seen applied to the Earth’s atmosphere before and the logic in section 3.1 - there he equates E_u (the upward LW (long wave radiation) from the atmosphere, a flux) with the total internal energy of atmosphere. That would appear to be an fundamental error in units (or description). The erroneous conclusion in section 3.3 that the greenhouse effect does not depend on optical depth presumably arises from this (i.e. the total mass of the atmosphere determines the gravitational PE (assuming hydrostacy), which sets the internal energy (via assumption 'g’) and therefore the outward LW). None of this makes any sense ... - gavin
          • Tape2Tape, on 04/08/2008, -2/+0Seems to me you're changing the line in the sand to suit your needs. The "consensus" claims that climate change is occurring more rapidly because of human habits, and something must be done to prevent calamity. Miskolczi is saying that any change is not going to happen rapidly enough to cause calamity. That bucks the consensus. In other words, regardless of human contributions to GHG, he doesn't think the climate will change rapidly enough to cause calamity. That bucks the consensus.

            He did not state humans are the cause of warming, you made that up. Nobody denies that the climate changes, that is what it does and always has done; there is no argument there.

            At any rate, it's not a silver bullet and it's definitely debatable. But, right or wrong, like it or not, it's a single peer-reviewed paper refuting the consensus. So, enough with the inane proclamation of there being no peer reviewed studies refuting the consensus view.

            yeah, yeah..."but there are no peer reviewed studies in a MAJOR journal refuting the consensus view"...right?
          • petrodollar, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1"Miskolczi is saying that any change is not going to happen rapidly enough to cause calamity."

            There's no "consensus" on this point, so nothing to buck. Climatologists aren't generally equipped to measure the social/biological/whatever impacts of the phenomena they study, so I don't know why you think they'd have a consensus opinion on this point.

            "He did not state humans are the cause of warming, you made that up. "

            All that matters is that he doesn't rule it out. In other words, he does not REFUTE it.
        • mahdaeng, on 04/07/2008, -14/+1@petrodollar:

          Oh, you mean like these people?: http://digg.com/environment/Climate_Activist_Got_B ...
          • petrodollar, on 04/07/2008, -4/+13What the ***** is that supposed to mean to me? You still can't provide a single piece of peer reviewed literature that refutes the consensus view. We're talking about SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE and you bother me about a ***** BBC report? Go re-take kindergarten.
          • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1@petrodollar:

            My, that was an eloquent and well thought-out response, worthy of a man of science!

            My point was that the "consensus view", that you seem to esteem so highly, is not necessarily as credible as many take it to be. The report to which I referred was the result of scientific research finding that although CO2 levels have risen since 1998, temperatures have not, thereby negating the notion that rising CO2 levels cause global warming. Unfortunately, the BBC caved in to pressure from a special interest group and modified their article on the report.

            [[We're talking about SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE and you bother me about a ****ing BBC report?]]

            That's the point here, really. The literature to which you refer is not guaranteed to be scientific if reports are subject to change based on the demands of lobbyists, politicians, special interest groups, etc. This works both ways, of course. The anti-global-warming crowd needs to be just as cautious about twisted, unscientific data as the pro-global-warming people do.

            Finally, you need to settle down. This is nothing to get so angry about. Let's assume that the temperature really is rising (and perhaps it is). Can you stop it from doing so? What is your solution? How will you stop global warming?
          • petrodollar, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2"The literature to which you refer is not guaranteed to be scientific if reports are subject to change based on the demands of lobbyists, politicians, special interest groups, etc."

            Wow, you're really struggling with this, aren't you? Again, BBC reports are irrelevant. They're not "scientific literature," so why should I care whether they're subject to influence from lobbyists?

            "Scientific literature" = research published in peer reviewed scholarly journals. Not newspaper articles. Not hollywood movies. Not blog posts.

            Understood?
          • mahdaeng, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1@petrodollar:

            I'm not the one struggling here, friend. Everyone and his pet turtle knows that a BBC report (or CNN or FOX News, etc.) is not scientific literature. That's not the question here. The point is that the reporting of scientific literature is twisted, skewed, and altered. Why? Why report on the results of scientific research exactly as it is? You seem to be a reasonably intelligent individual, so I think you can answer that one on your own.

            My final questions still remain unanswered, however. Let's assume that the temperature really is rising (and perhaps it is). Can you stop it from doing so? What is your solution? How will you stop global warming?
          • mahdaeng, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1And my questions still remain unanswered.
      • Jaablaze, on 04/07/2008, -9/+3We can reduce global warming if you stop smoking all that weed...
      • vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -3/+15I utterly love the irony of people pointing to science to prove that scientists know nothing. All that is accomplished is a highlighting of their own ignorance, which is occasionally willful.
      • OwdenBowden, on 04/07/2008, -15/+4I bet all of you that disagree with my statement are Obama Supporters.
        • petrodollar, on 04/07/2008, -1/+9I bet you're illiterate: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion ...
          • OwdenBowden, on 04/07/2008, -13/+1Not at all . However you are just Chicken Little. So run around screaming with your reuseable shopping bag "The Sky is falling, The Sky is falling. Global Warming is making the Sky fall. We should all go into a cave..."
            Then stick your head up your ass.
          • ncairns, on 04/07/2008, -0/+7Yes, I'm an Obama supporter and I disagree with your statement completely. However, my supporting Obama informed that opinion much less than the fact that I'm a scientist.
          • petrodollar, on 04/07/2008, -0/+4OwdenBowden: only Obama supporters believe in AGW
            Petrodollar: John McCain believes in AGW
            OwdebBowden: PWN3D!!!
      • thebellmaster1x, on 04/07/2008, -4/+4Well, good to know that some egotistical Digger is looking after us while every scientist in the world runs into walls screaming, "DERP DERP." Congratulations on your eighty thousand doctorates.
      • biotch, on 04/07/2008, -0/+4Is that an argument against doing something about it?
        The earth is SUPPOSED to work in many ways but we rule our environment.
        You think buildings and cars and computers were just SUPPOSED to work?
        What are we just supposed to roll over and let the earth consume us? There are known consequences to global warming and there are known causes. We happen to be in control of some of those causes and may as well keep from exacerbating the problem.
        If we just gave up on all the things that were just supposed to happen in our environment we'd still be swinging from branches in the forest.
    • Miami305Dade, on 04/07/2008, -35/+8This guy has been paid off to say this crap. Global Warming is the biggest scam that has ever been created. Stop believing Al Gore cause he's "super cereal" because all he his doing is trying to implement a Global Carbon Tax......Believe this if you want more taxes cause we all know we aren't taxed enough!
      • johnnysaucepn, on 04/07/2008, -4/+24Yeah, that's right. Because no scientists were studying global warming for decades before Al Gore brought to your attention, right?
      • noisey, on 04/07/2008, -6/+7It's not only the carbon tax, there's billions to be made in other areas. For example, recent legislation in California wanted to mandate carbon reducers on the exhaust of all vehicles. Only one company has a patent on this technology - with a "projected" cost of $1000/vehicle this is literally worth billions.
        • MrErr, on 04/07/2008, -1/+6But if we made fuel effecient cars, oil companies would be losing billions. I am sure they want to hold on to their profit margins.
        • dougmc, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2How do you reduce the carbon (dioxide, monoxide) output of a car without either 1) reducing the power output of the engine, or 2) making the engine more efficient? (Or three, making the engine burn something else, but that doesn't really count.) Certainly, you can't just put some sort of magic catalytic-converter type device in the exhaust pipe and reduce CO/CO2 emissions ...
      • petrodollar, on 04/07/2008, -0/+4Ok, can I beleive John McCain? http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion ...
      • thebellmaster1x, on 04/07/2008, -6/+9Again with your Al Gore *****. I'VE NEVER WATCHED "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH." I made up my mind on global warming a LONG time before that movie came out, you know, what with all of the CLIMATOLOGISTS warning us about it.
        Jackass.
      • ncairns, on 04/07/2008, -1/+7What crap. People who spout that nonsense are truly just stupid. If a climatologist wants to make lots of money or get lots of grants, they do so by trying to refute global warming. Follow every denier, from George Deutsch to my friend Richard Lindzen, and you'll find a trail of oil.
      • Gazoo2001, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2I saw and loved the following comment in another thread, and I think it applies here:
        "I feel like I just got smacked with a 95 mph fastball made of Stupid."
    • renagadex2, on 04/07/2008, -10/+46Regardless if you think global warming is a hoax or not (which by now is ridiculous) the result, less toxic emissions, alternative fuel sources etc. should all still be pursued.
      • geoffg, on 04/08/2008, -2/+0How is C02 a "toxic emission?" Every time you exhale it's a "toxic emission"... what nonsense.
        • dougmc, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2renagadex2 did not claim that CO2 was a toxic emission, though perhaps he didn't make his point in the most clear way possible.
          Also note that it's `C - letter-O - 2', not `C - zero - 2'.
        • geoffg, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0Ahhh you got me, Anthropogenic Global Warming due to C"O"2 is real, I believe you now.
    • bonds, on 04/07/2008, -14/+2RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
    • mahdaeng, on 04/07/2008, -8/+2Like what?
      • dougmc, on 04/07/2008, -0/+3Like post to digg. That'll fix it.
      • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Dugg down - but with no serious response as to how to fix the problem. Nice one, diggers.
    • bodegas, on 04/07/2008, -14/+3Listen, promoting environmental consciousness is never a bad thing, but the science behind man made global warming is REALLY weak and speaking against it has become some sort of social taboo. I am far from stupid or uniformed and I can tell you with a straight face that CO2 is not causing the planet to warm, it's practically the weakest green house gas out there.

      Get this DVD, it will start you on the right path. My thesis adviser recommended it.
      http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Swindle ...
      • DrDragun, on 04/07/2008, -1/+9You claim that you can affirm a negative, so I know you are not a scientific-minded skeptic leader but rather a skeptic follower
        • bodegas, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1What are you talking about? Scientifically it makes far more sense to disprove the cause of something, then trying to make a sweeping statement about what is causing something. The IS can be caused by variables you haven't even considered the ISN'T is looking at one, that you can control for.
      • vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -3/+12Your thesis adviser recommended a trite duplicitous piece of fluff by the same producer who proclaimed that silicone breast implants were beneficial to women's health in a previous psuedo-documentary?

        Denial of century-old science does not refute it.
      • ncairns, on 04/07/2008, -2/+6Oh *****, there was *some* ground to be had there at the beginning, but then you linked to the most inane joke-umentary I've ever cringed through. I know climatologists who would sit you and your thesis adviser down for hours explaining everything that's wrong with that movie. Ugh.
        • bodegas, on 04/07/2008, -5/+0I know ones who would sit your climatologist buddies down and explain why it's not BS.

          I'm not saying that DVD isn't just as much a piece of propaganda as inconvenient truth, but take or leave what you want from it- if man made global warming via CO2 is causing the warming trend then there should be more of it in the atmosphere then anywhere else, but according to the data there isn't.
          • ncairns, on 04/07/2008, -1/+9Sorry, but my climatologist friends are MIT and Caltech PhDs, most of them dual climatology and physics - they don't get things explained to them.

            You don't even need a PhD to get the gist of it. It's simple science. There are essentially three main shapers of global climate - Milankovitch cycles, solar flux, and 'other'. The science tells us the warming we've seen can't be attributed to either the Earth's orbital periods or increases in the Sun's output, so all we've got left is 'other'. That can include things like oceanic versus atmospheric gas sequestration, but the only quantity which has increased at a rate commensurate to average global temperature is CO2. Of course there are other gases which play a role, but their impact generally isn't nearly as well understood. Water vapor for example, which is generally pegged as a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, also is a huge contributor to an atmospheric phenomena known as 'global dimming', which results in lowered temperatures. The reality is that although CO2 may look pedantically benign relative to other factors, the volume we're talking about is simply too massive not to have an analogue effect.
        • geoffg, on 04/09/2008, -1/+0Except it's cooling genius.
    • diggingaround, on 04/07/2008, -3/+3.... like.. drive a Hummer while you can =)
    • Poonibble, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1meh, i'll do something about it tommorow
    • krizzle, on 04/07/2008, -8/+1STOP LAUNCHING ROCKETS YOU NASA *****
      • stoanhart, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Yeah, those couple of shuttle launches per year are a huge contributor compared to mass deforestation, coal plants, airplanes, and cars...
    • danielknight, on 04/07/2008, -8/+2The Great Global Warming Swindle:http://www.mininova.org/tor/638880 Stop spreading propaganda ***** for attention.
      • vikingcoder, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3TGGWS is a trite duplicitous piece of fluff.

        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165664054 ...

        The producer has a history of pseudo-documentaries, including one where he proclaimed that silicone breast implants were beneficial to women's health.
        • kurtu5, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1I'll give you props to you if you can say why it sucks.

          The indefinite pronoun, "it", specifically refers to the content of the above movie and not the movie's producer's particular personal proclivities.

          Like ad homenim, I can't accept tautologies, for example this cleverly disguised gem. "It sucks because its stupid."

          I for one thing think the whole GW thing is a tool for control.

          It may have some partial truths to it, but many of the truths I can see in it are;
          1 ) its being thrust down the throat of every American(mostly to the ignorant, who can't even identify what causes seasons),
          2) it's initial proponents are now on the bottom floor of a new market(carbon credits),
          3) it wants sovereign nations to bend to the will of a central world expert,
          4) and there seems(according to their predictions) to be no practical way of really halting it.

          I want reasons, because I may switch sides! I listen to reason.

          Hell, I used to love democrats and loathe republicans. But I let new information change my mind. Now I also loathe democrats. Even much more so than republicans. Specifically for their extension of post reconstruction share cropper type dependance to modern, free blacks in the form of machine politic entitlements in exchange for completely loyal voting blocks.
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3I think once it is broke it is sort of too late.
  • 4d669, on 04/07/2008, -36/+52Taxing people won't do *****.
    • eShinn, on 04/07/2008, -9/+21If they're taxed into a lowering ROI then of course they'll change. Let's say the tobacco industry was taxed enough that it became nowhere near as profitable a business model. Money is the reason behind it all. The only problem with taxing is that it goes to another private company a little more evil - Federal Reserve (aka Mr. Rothschild's Reserve)
      • Skooma714, on 04/07/2008, -2/+11If that happened then there would just be black market tobacco.

        yay more drug war.
        • TrevorBradley, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2hard to smuggle that much oil around...
    • kent1146, on 04/07/2008, -10/+16Taxing companies is the ONLY way to get those companies to do what you want. Unlike persons, you can't throw a business in jail.

      Then the tobacco companies are found to be guilty of contributing to deaths due to cancer, they get fined. When pharmaceutical companies hide evidence that reveals that their drugs may have fatal side effects, they get fined. When one company infringes upon the copyrights of another, it gets fined.

      Taxes make the world go 'round, my friend.

      • sodade, on 04/07/2008, -1/+3Please google: "revoke corporate charter" - there is another way to deal with flagrantly abusive corporations.
      • diggduggjoe, on 04/07/2008, -1/+7You cannot tax companies for they will only pass on the tax. If, you wish to get people to use a product over another find a way to lower the price. The farm/energy rules are hurting virtually everyone on their grocery bills and ethanol is not even green. We need less government and more innovation. Having less government, especially when it offers advantages to one tech over another, will force companies to compete fairly. Then small companies with new ideas will be able to drive a new greener economy. As long as Big Oil and Big Corn lobby the Feds, we will get the same old solutions.
    • weeeezzll, on 04/07/2008, -3/+12Of course it will! It will generate money for government, which they, of course, will use in a very responsible and ethical manner to improve our lives.
      • petrodollar, on 04/07/2008, -3/+2Aren't conservatives always yelling about how taxes discourage profitable activites? Why are you changing your song now?
        • kurtu5, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3I think you completely missed his sarcasm.
    • bphicke, on 04/07/2008, -6/+13No, but it will sure make alot of money for Al Gore's carbon offset company.
      • dan87, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1start your own offset company. you could be making that cash. its not like Al Gore has the market corned on green businesses. you stand to make as much money on global warming as he does, though he does have a bit of a head start, i would guess.
        • kurtu5, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2Oh yes he does. Lets say you do start your own company. Let say you quickly realize that carbon credits can be created out of thin air by tricky contracts. Lets say you start getting a lot of money and start becoming very powerful.

          Well, Al Gore has this thing called political power. He will simply lobby for legislation against your type of operation, but allow a blind eye to pass over Al's operation.

          How can that be? Well printing money is illegal, right? Well not if your are a bank who happens to be a member of the Federal Reserve, then you can print money via the Federal Reserve Act. So Al, gets in a law that says, we need a "central authority to curb the problems in the speculative carbon trading market! I just happen to know a swell bunch of guys who could do it."
    • br0ck, on 04/07/2008, -2/+12How about just taking the record-profit-earning oil company's 18 billion in tax breaks and stop subsidizing the broken corn-based ethanol initiatives and use all the resulting money find a real workable alternate energy source like cellulosic ethanol? Weaning ourselves from foreign oil has many different advantages that make the elimination of a chunk of the CO2 seem like just a small side benefit.
      • texpundit, on 04/07/2008, -0/+4Cellulosic ethanol isn't much more workable or green than corn-based ethanol.

        How about we go with a safe and efficient nuclear reactor design (something like the Integral Fast Reactor) and work on more efficient and less polluting (through manufacturing) batteries for electric cars? Solar and wind are stop-gaps until things like more efficient solar cells come about. We can start implementing plugin cars and nuclear power right *now*.
    • tuxerware, on 04/07/2008, -1/+8I kind of does work. Here in Sweden gasoline is taxed quiet heavily, around 70% of the gas price is taxes here. That has lead to consumer investing in more fuel efficient vehicles. So it does work, i might not like it when I'm at the pumps but if we are serious about combating climate change this is one way.
    • Scruffydan, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Let me guess you don't know anything about Pigovian taxes
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
      Please read that article and explain why it wont work
    • bodegas, on 04/07/2008, -2/+0Yes it does idiot, take an economics course
    • ktss87, on 04/07/2008, -0/+4Taxes are money that needs to be paid. When people have to pay money, they try to find out ways that they dont have to pay a lot. Its like putting 3 walls around a rabbit, and leaving only 1 exit. Either the quarry moves in the direction you want it to, or suffer the consequences.
    • evilcaptain, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1They just pass the extra cost along to the customers. Its standard business practice.
      • Math, on 04/08/2008, -0/+12) So then consumers move to a less expensive company that pays less in tax, because they pollute less. The less efficient company suffers.
  • bardamu, on 04/07/2008, -28/+36But the Weather Channel guy said.....

    Sorry I trust a rocket scientist over a right wing weather man any day when it comes to climatology.
    • evilregis, on 04/07/2008, -0/+7They're meteorologists, not climatologists. They predict rain tomorrow and a high of 23 degrees a week from now.
    • noisey, on 04/07/2008, -6/+13This particular rocket scientist is also a politician. Getting to the top of the NASA hierarchy mandates stretching your values.
      • biotch, on 04/07/2008, -1/+6This was not nearly the politically charged issue it is now until Bush came to power. Global warming was widely agreed upon before denying it was linked to the republican party.

        In any event... perhaps you can tell me which of these values have been stretched?
        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
        • dexter411, on 04/07/2008, -6/+1There are plenty of people unconvinced of anthropogenic global warming who are neither politicians nor paid by oil companies. I, for one, simply don't see a causative relation between human activity and a degree of global warming (which cannot be extrapolated in any reasonable way, anyway). Nor do I see a causative relation between carbon dioxide and global warming (at least not in that order). Why do people keep treating people repeating "It's gotten hotter, it must be because of us" as news?
          • vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -1/+7Because the science has been reaffirmed repeatedly since it was presented over 100 years ago. It is not a "correlation does not equal causation" type of situation. The spectrum absorption of CO2 is a well-known physical property. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are another quantifiable fact as is total solar irradiance.

            A good site for presenting "the rest of the story", complete with references to primary peer-reviewed sources, behind common denier canard & myths is [ http://www.skepticalscience.com ].

            Allow me to clarify the term "denier", as it relates to the term "skeptic". The following is true regardless of the topic in contention.

            A skeptic perceives a dubious claim. The skeptic asks questions and looks at the facts. The answers & results are considered. Either the skeptic's questions are valid and the issue is dismissed or the skeptic admits a possibility of error on their part.

            A denier perceives a dubious claim. All facts are ignored except for half-truths that support the denier's opinion. Questions are asked - regardless if they've been answered repeatedly before. The denier states that the claim is an obvious fraud simply because it is.
          • dexter411, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2"A skeptic perceives a dubious claim. The skeptic asks questions and looks at the facts. The answers & results are considered. Either the skeptic's questions are valid and the issue is dismissed or the skeptic admits a possibility of error on their part."

            Yup... and I read documents like the IPCC reports from cover-to-cover, see good ideas and science behind them, and then go, "Wait... where does this prove that?" when I get to the politically-driven conclusions. I don't stick to the "I don't think man is causing it" because i have anything to gain from believing it as such; I have just yet to find a single study that proves anthropogenic climate change (the ones that simply show the planet is heating up and then inserts "This is caused by man" at the end doesn't satisfy me). But please, point out a peer-reviewed study that directly studies human-activity in a quantifiable manner as being linked to climate change. You'll find that up to 1984, all observed change was more related to the solar irradiance than to CO2.
          • vikingcoder, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4The science of CO2 moderated global warming is over 100 years old.

            Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground", London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237–275.

            http://tinyurl.com/3afl5b (google book search)
            http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Arrh1.htm

            Summary of the history of climate change science.
            http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

            Check out the Skeptical Science link above, it has the relevant peer-reviewed studies you are asking for linked to the standard skeptical / denial assertions & questions.
    • dracostimpy, on 04/07/2008, -8/+4NASA is first and foremost a government agency, which means the only way it gets fed is if it behaves as expected by its Congressional benefactors. Quite clearly, the democrat-controlled government would love to convince Americans to pay another tax for their emissions, since dems have always been the party of increasing revenue streams.

      Thus, for the NASA scientists to eat, they must support the official government position; to do otherwise is to bite the hand that feeds them. Therefore, despite his obvious credentials, I have to doubt whether I can trust what this scientist says given that one position earns him a carrot whereas the other gets him the stick. It's quite easy to find an abundance of non-govt-funded scientists who refute global warming, but given that something like 70% of climatologists ARE govt-funded, I'm not at all surprised to see the consensus among them is pro-global warming.
      • supernovasky, on 04/07/2008, -3/+6That argument fails when you realize that scientists could make a lot more money disproving global warming for oil companies, who pay tens of thousands per study showing global warming in doubt.
        • dracostimpy, on 04/07/2008, -5/+2NASA scientists are probably smart enough to realize that a single payday isn't worth destroying a lifetime of reputation. If they worked directly for Big Oil, they'd quickly be discredited and their careers ruined.

          The beauty of the hustle is that they work for a world-renowned intellectual group like NASA, yet they're completely owned by Congress which is completely owned by the corporations. Is it really that hard for you to fathom a whopping 2 degrees of separation?
        • dexter411, on 04/07/2008, -5/+2What's funny is that the combined contributions to political candidates in the United States from environmentalists versus oil companies is something like 100:1. Are special interests okay as long as you think they're innocuous?
          • vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -1/+7A reference for this claim would be mightily helpful.
      • vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -1/+9The irony being that the current administration's position has been that global warming doesn't exist, or is not anthropogenic if it does exist. Only in about the past year has Bush started trying to save face by acknowledging the science.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
        • dracostimpy, on 04/07/2008, -6/+1The current admin doesn't fund NASA; Congress does, and they overwhelmingly love the idea of a carbon tax. Bush isn't trying to save face; he's recognizing that this tax actually has a sporting chance of being adopted, which could mean more tax revenue to share with his buddies. The only thing Bush loves more than Big Oil is Big Gummint.
    • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/07/2008, -8/+1You trust a rocket scientist under the influence of liberalism over a meteorologist who's an expert on the matter? No wonder so much of America is screwed up.

      BTW - What exactly does the science behind calculating flight trajectories, fuel mixtures, and escape velocities, have to do with the Earths climate??!
      • vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -1/+8http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/
        The Climate and Radiation Branch at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center supports a key NASA mission, namely, to understand and protect our home planet. We seek a better understanding of Earth's climate on all time scales, from daily, seasonal and interannual variability through changes on geologic time scales. Our research focuses on atmospheric measurement, numerical modeling, and climate analysis. We investigate atmospheric radiation, both as a driver for climate change and as a tool for the remote sensing of Earth's atmosphere and surface. The Branch research program seeks to better understand how our planet reached its present state, and how it may respond to future drivers, both natural and anthropogenic.
        • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/08/2008, -6/+2Okay, so the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old... and we think we can take ten years of data, and determine that we have a global warming problem? I'm not at all convinced.
          • vikingcoder, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6That would be because you are still ignorant, perhaps willfully so. Pointing to science to show how stupid scientists are only shows your ignorance.

            The science of CO2 moderated global warming is over 100 years old.

            Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground", London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237–275.
            http://tinyurl.com/3afl5b (google book search)
            http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Arrh1.htm
          • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/09/2008, -4/+1Ignorant? Really? I'm not "Pointing to science to show how stupid scientists are" as you claim. Rather, I'm suggesting that we simply don't have the scientific grounds to make these judgments that the general public believes so strongly in. For example, in the 1970s, global cooling was the trendy thing to concern oneself with. The NSF had seen plenty of data, and believed that this was our problem.

            Consider also, the article “Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years.”, published in an edition of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics last year. The research was carried on in China, funded by the Chinese National Science Foundation. Once again, scientific data every bit as valid as any, but it paints a rather different picture: that CO2 has little to do with global climate change, and that the Earth is in fact, cooling.

            You can take all the BS that Al Gore and other politicians are only too willing to shove down your throat. That's fine with me. But if when choosing to ignore half of the scientific studies that have been carried on, YOU sir, become the ignorant one. Decidedly willfully so.
          • vikingcoder, on 04/09/2008, -2/+4Now, you're displaying an inability to discern journalistic sensationalism from peer-reviewed scientific knowledge.

            http://skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-sai ...
            >>
            the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
            >>

            As for the Zhen-Shan and Xian paper:

            "just a rubbish paper that should not have been published"
            http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/multiscale_a ...

            I understood the science supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming before Al Gore started working on AIT. I have never seen the movie.
          • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/09/2008, -4/+1Intriguing that you point out journalistic sensationalism whilst falling prey to it yourself. Much of the global warming hype is journalistic sensationalism based on little scientific evidence... though they can convince you of otherwise.

            Take the following two quotes:

            “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns
            have begun to change dramatically and that these changes
            may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious
            political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”

            “[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys
            are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least
            for the time being is growing warmer.”

            The first is Newsweek, 1975. The second? Time Magazine, 1939. Clearly, a ridiculous degree of sensationalism over inadequate scientific evidence occurred. If you honestly believe that suddenly, in 2008 that's no longer the case, you're quite wrong.

            And the Zhen-Shan and Xian paper... it's just rubbish? On what grounds does Mr. Lambert make his assertion? The fact that the Chinese to English translation isn't hot? Not good enough. Clearly a respected scientific publication found it fit to print, based on valid data. I don't know about you, but I'll trust a copy of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics over Mr. Lambert's blog every time.

            In the 1890s to early 1900s, we knew that the world was going to freeze. In the 1930s, we knew that the world was going to heat up. In the 1970s, we knew that the world was going to freeze. In 2008 we know that the world is going to heat up. Imagine what your grandchildren will know. They'll be bombarded by new reports that the world is going to lose 1°F in another ten years, and how that's going to spell apocalypse for millions everywhere.

            The fact that scientists continue to debate the issue is a clear indication that the current data and interpretation simply isn't good enough to make a case for anything. MUCH LESS global catastrophe cause by your GMC. To cry "heretic" every time an equally qualified scientist makes an unpopular call is incredibly naive.
          • vikingcoder, on 04/09/2008, -2/+5I get my scientific knowledge from peer-reviewed science journals, not popular news outlets. I don't care what Time Magazine says.

            The Zhen-Shan and Xian paper is rubbish because they ignored basic physical properties, such as looking for linearity in CO2 rather than log(CO2), to arrive at their conclusion. The paper also included trite canards such as "The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s", without even mentioning sulfate aerosols.
          • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/09/2008, -3/+2Good. We got the news issue out of the way. On to better stuff.

            If we're reading the same Zhen-Shan and Xian paper, then I don't see where you get your idea that they're looking for linearity. The method they chose to apply in this instance is Empirical Mode Decomposition. EMD is, in fact a nonlinear technique.

            As for sulfate aerosols, research conducted by NASA indicates that sulfate aerosols induce negative radiative forcing. This process actually cools the Earth's temperature, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet.
          • vikingcoder, on 04/09/2008, -2/+5I don't have access to the full paper. The comments I have posted came from the review, with abstract, that I have previously linked to.

            As for aerosols - precisely. Global dimming from aerosols put into the atmosphere through burning "dirty" coal, without emissions scrubbing, is the primary cause of the 40s to 70s cooling. It is rubbish to claim, while ignoring aerosols, that said cooling trend disproves CO2's heat retentive properties.
          • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/09/2008, -4/+2If you would like to read the paper in it's entirety, this should do the trick:

            http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/docs/Zhen-Shan--Xiu ...

            As you pointed out previously, they don't mention aerosols. However it should be noted that the topic would appear to be global warming as (allegedly) caused by human activity. If this were to be the case, then I would imagine that the emission of sulfate aerosols would be a non-issue (as would CO2s heat retentive properties), as the process of NRF would effectively counterbalance the atmospheric heating caused by an increase in CO2. In this case, instead of being called to superfluous and wholly useless action (carbon tax, carbon certificate/offset, "green" anything), why aren't people being told the truth: that sulfate-rich unscrubbed emissions are keeping CO2 emissions from causing some sort of catastrophic global warming?

            However, if it's simply the presence of so much CO2 and Sulfates being in the air that's the issue, (causing, perhaps, an increase in respiratory problems and such) then that's what should be reported. Global climate change has been going on since well before we came into existence, and will continue long after we're gone.
          • vikingcoder, on 04/09/2008, -2/+5Thank you. I can now confirm that that review is appropriate. This is a rubbish paper. It uses EMD to try to extract a linear CO2 / temperature effect, rather than looking for linearity in log(CO2). It also uses a trite canard, 40s - 70s cooling refutes CO2 greenhouse effect, as a keystone point.

            Sulfate aerosol emissions were dramatically reduced (e.g. Clean Air Acts), due to the additional effect of acid rain. The atmospheric aerosols have decreased, while the atmospheric CO2 has increased, causing increased radiative forcing and therefore, globally higher temperatures on average.

            People are being told the truth about sulfate aerosols. In fact, there are those providing risible suggestions that aerosols emissions should be stimulated to counteract the increased CO2 emissions. This is akin to the children's story of a kingdom importing larger & larger pests in order to rid itself of its current pest problem.

            Historical natural climate change does not refute current anthropogenic climate change.
          • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/10/2008, -4/+2Clearly we disagree on the validity of the paper in question. I've read through it multiple times now, and I still can't see where you think it's such rubbish. You may consider the 40s-70s evidence trite, but opinion doesn't invalidate evidence. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I make the point that too many people are simply ignoring the science. Once you start disregarding certain studies, calling them "trite" simply because the findings don't jive with your own beliefs, it ceases to be science, and instead becomes junk.

            But enough lecturing. The Hudson Institute and NAPAP determined long ago that acid rain was both a naturally occurring phenomenon, and nothing more than an environmental annoyance, at worst. Congress and the EPA ignored the work, described by John Tedrow of Rutgers University as "genius". The Clean Air Acts you speak of were --like carbon tax, carbon certificate/offset, "green" anything-- an exercise in wasteful, over-funded, under-researched, government policy aimed at improving the image of Congress. If global warming is indeed occurring, as you believe, it's only as a result of the Clean Air Acts. Rather ironic, isn't it?

            While you're certainly right about the fact that historical climate change doesn't refute anthropogenic climate change, the real point is that the anthropogenic climate change you've been led to believe exists... doesn't. Ever notice that all the evidence used to back up these claims come from computer models? Models, in a virtual world, where variables are continually tinkered around with, providing wide ranges of results. Truth is, unless the modelers tweak their simulations to environmental extremes that simply don't currenty exist on Earth, the end results are almost always within the margin of error expected with such techniques. Measurements taken on the actual environment, however, paint a far less, and indeed benign picture.

            Some good reading that explains in far better detail than what I can muster:

            http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

          • vikingcoder, on 04/10/2008, -2/+5Further & further down the rabbit hole we go.

            You are acknowledging the aerosol effect when it supports your position, and accusing me of disregarding studies when it doesn't.

            In line with avoiding popular news outlets, I also avoid getting my scientific knowledge from public policy organizations such as The Hudson Institute. I would be interested in seeing any references that the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program determined any such thing.

            "Ever notice that all the evidence used to back up these claims come from computer models?"

            No, because it doesn't. Specific predictive scenarios do require computational modeling, but to know that there is an issue in the first place doesn't.

            As I showed above, the science of CO2 moderated global warming has been around for over 100 years. The spectrum absorption of CO2 is a well-known physical property. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are another quantifiable fact as is total solar irradiance.

            A good site for presenting "the rest of the story", complete with references to primary peer-reviewed sources, behind common denier canards & myths, of which Milloy's Junk Science site is replete with, is [ http://www.skepticalscience.com ].

            http://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
            The key point is that all the models fail to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.
          • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2Rabbit hole? I'm right behind you...

            Anywho. Yes, I'm acknowledging the aerosol effect. It would be of little help not to. But it's not about supporting my position at all. It's about making a point. The aerosol effect is a variable. Problem with your argument is, it's not the only variable out there. When dealing with the study of the climate, there are nearly innumerable variables that we must account for. I have not seen any one computer model, or any one set of measurements that both accounts for all known atmospheric, land-based, oceanic, and solar variables, AND comes to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming exists. You disregard studies which lack all variables, so long as they don't point to global warming, yet you support --almost blindly-- other data sets that are equally incomplete, so long as they support your own position.

            You say that the science of CO2 moderated globa warming has existed for over 100 years... unfortunately, this simply isn't so. The science of global climate change has existed for about that long, and in those hundred years, the scientific consensus has changed four times. From cooling to heating, to cooling, back to heating. If anything, the greatest source --historically-- for CO2, is 7 billion humans breathing it out every day.

            According to studies, while there may or may not be warming over the past 100 years, Earth's temperature has remained in a fairly consistent and expected place for at least the past 3000 years. This is taking into account both the Medieval Climate Optimum (roughly 100 years ago, and it was significantly warmer than it is now.), and the Little Ice Age .

            As per your statement "... to know that there is an issue in the first place...", how, then, do you know there's an issue? If you've been reviewing the data, then you would know that there is little to no evidence of the aforementioned issue... much less a smoking gun on the matter. If you've been bombarded by the information bandied about by politicians and the media, then yes, I can see where you might come up with this.

            Anthropogenic CO2 emissions models don't take into account geophysical, atmospheric, and chemical processes in the Earth that --in reality-- reduce said emmisions to nothing more than a historical afterthought:

            http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10 ...

            and

            http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEFVO1.pdf

            The real point is that climate models fail to take a lot into account. CO2 is an easy target because we're told we make so much of it. But when so many data sets take CO2 as the exclusive factor in determining global temperature, and when they boldly ignore all other variables --of which there are amazing amounts-- then the studies become nothing more than self-trivializing pursuits in alarmist dogma.

            As for NAPAP... I'll get that to you as soon as I can.
          • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2That first link was bad. Trying again...

            http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10 ...
          • vikingcoder, on 04/11/2008, -2/+4So now you're back to pointing to journalistic sensationalism in an attempt to refute primary scientific sources, such as what I posted at the beginning of the discussion. If all you're going to do is flail about with inanities such as "you've been bombarded by the information bandied about by politicians and the media", when you earlier admitted "Good. We got the news issue out of the way. On to better stuff.", then this is my last contribution to this thread.

            Ahh... the trite "human breath" canard - all breath, human & otherwise, is a net zero adjustment to the atmosphere since the carbon recently came from plants, either by eating the plants or eating animals that ate the plants, that had extracted it from the atmosphere.

            This is followed by an article from another public policy organization that is chock full of hyperbole, and more trite canards & outright myths.

            The second paper is predicated on the first & the tired old "water wapor" canard. Water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas, however CO2 spectrum absorption covers bands that water vapor doesn't. Water vapor is also a passive GHG due to that fact unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time. There is no such "quick fix" process for CO2.

            http://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse ...
            http://skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water- ...

            Since the start of the industrial revolution, humanity has put out 1.2 trillion tons of CO2, half of that since the early 1980s, through the combustion of fossil fuels. The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased 35% solely due to our emissions. That increase can be directly linked to humanity through parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. That is because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossilized remains - much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.

            It has been known for over 50 years that an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will make for a stronger greenhouse effect regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere.

            http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ...
            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
            http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html
            http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm
          • vikingcoder, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3Estimates of CO2 emissions from human breath range from 1.4-2.2 billion tonnes/year.

            http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-ho ...

            CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels total 28.2 billion tonnes in 2005.

            Taking the larger number, that works out to human breath equaling 8% of anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion emissions in 2005. Human breath doesn't produce a net change in the Earth's atmosphere, while fossil fuel consumption does.
          • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/11/2008, -3/+2Try quoting me accurately next time. I didn't say "you've been bombarded...", I said "IF you've been bombarded.". And you completely ignore the fact that I entertained that notion due to your insistence that anthropogenic global warming is a proven phenomenon --which, as I have said, lacks any scientific evidence, and indeed, breaks down under such scrutiny.

            A shorter way of saying what I just said: Scientific data time and again, refutes anthropogenic global warming. It is your oft-mentioned journalistic sensationalism that claims warming to be an issue. So when you ignore the science, what am I supposed to believe?

            If you want to talk about arguments being trite, I would suggest that you think again about your CO2 argument. Humans are only responsible for roughly 3% of the CO2 cycle, and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir. The other 97% -99% consists of natural emissions. You underestimate the resiliency of our home planet --CO2 dissolves quiet effortlessly into water... the marginal amount that we do put in is literally a drop in the ocean.

            Your sites on CO2 measure anthropogenic CO2 emissions against previous anthropogenic emissions. This presents a problem, as it ignores both naturally occurring CO2 emissions, and the atmospheric reservoir. Indeed, it ignores essentially all variables AND constants on Earth. You're attempting to measure the effects of human emissions on the environment whilst ignoring the environment. This interpretation of the data is inherently flawed, and downright wrong. Indeed, the data itself is useless, when looked at in this fashion.

            The biggest problem with the CO2 idea, is that correlation does not equal causation. Cause must precede effect, and data set after data set point to rises in temperature occurring well before a rise in CO2 --in many cases, by a good 800 years. As Dr. Bob Carter puts it, to say that CO2 is the primary cause of temperature change is like saying that lung cancer causes smoking. Keep in mind the 3000 year average which has been quite well maintained over the past 100 years, and your CO2 theory looks weak... at best.

            Never mind the fact that (historically) many of the thermometers used over the long term have been unable to discern between genuine global climate change, and the urban heat island effect. I hope you're beginning to see my point about variables. They're small, yes... but they add up.

            You go on to claim (wrongfully so, I might add) that: "Human breath doesn't produce a net change in the Earth's atmosphere, while fossil fuel consumption does."

            Wrong. Just... wrong. Fossil fuel consumption, human breath, and natural emissions all produce the same CO2. You can't pick and choose which source of the gas effects the atmosphere, and which doesn't. It doesn't work that way.

            Have you ever thought of methane? Methane heats the planet 23 times as much as CO2. Nitrous oxide heats it up 296 times as much as CO2. Instead, you're taking shaky interpretation on shaky data, narrowing down to CO2, and saying "Aha! We have our smoking gun!"

            No sir, we do not have our smoking gun.
          • vikingcoder, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2Correct, all CO2 is the same. However, looking at only one side of a natural cycle is the pinnacle of willful ignorance. It's hilarious because you comment on the oceans absorptive capacity in the same breath.

            Humanity's CO2 emissions are ~4% of the oceanic & terrestrial outgassing. The catch is that anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion based CO2 emissions are not complemented by anthropogenic CO2 absorption. The oceans are a net CO2 sink that are currently absorbing 7 billion tons more than they outgas each year. The terrestrial biomes are also net sinks that are currently absorbing 5 billion tons more than they outgas each year.

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc ...

            Are you claiming that plants do not absorb CO2 from the atmosphere? That is the only way that breath would produce a net change in the atmosphere. The carbon in breath-based CO2 came from plants. The cycle then repeats with no net change in the atmospheric composition.

            Here's some reading, with primary sources referenced, on the urban heat island effect.
            http://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effe ...

            This has been amusing, but until you can provide something that isn't a trite canard, outright myth, or sophistic strawman bashing, I'm through with this thread.
          • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1You clearly have little to no understanding of the CO2 cycle. It's really quite funny that you accused me of only looking at one side of it.

            As for your idea that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not complemented by anthropogenic CO2 absorption... I can't help but laugh. Our 3% CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere helps encourages growth of plantlife and keeps heavily wooded areas from receding. If I were talking to anyone else, I would find it peculiar that you mention plant based CO2 absorption without realizing this.

            You are completely welcome to be through with this thread. If anything has been amusing, it was watching as you endlessly accuse me of providing you with trite canards, myths, etc, when you've done no different. What you have presented me with is misleading data, and flat out bad science. All sorts of notions that have been disproved over and over again.

            It's both funny and sad. You have an amazing ability to pick and choose some data only when it can be forcefully misconstrued to fit your own view. But when you are shown scientific evidence that you can't misinterpret, you give all sorts of pathetic excuses as to how it's "rubbish", without any satisfactory way of explaining why.

            Debating you has been not unlike debating with a brick. I thoroughly expected more from you, but I now see that for the mistake it was.
        • LarryLacuna, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4Meteorologists forecast the weather, climatologists study the climate.

          Now which one would be better suited to make statements about the climate?
    • danielknight, on 04/07/2008, -2/+0Moron didn't you see the digg article that rocket scientists aren't the smartest in the world, and why the hell would your stupid self think a WEATHERMAN has inferior knowledge to one at NASA? Juz cuz huh? It's stupid people like you that help NASA steal tax dollars that they waste on secret ***** that does us no good.
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1So by your logic, everyone working at NASA is a rocket scientist?
      • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2"Sorry I trust a rocket scientist over a right wing weather man any day when it comes to climatology."

        bardamu's words, not mine.
  • didiman, on 04/07/2008, -35/+74I heard global warming is causing global cooling now...
    • canrocks, on 04/07/2008, -9/+58It depends on where you are. . . Climate change causes a whole bunch of fun stuff; flooding in some areas, droughts in some areas, and generally ***** up weather everywhere.
      • Dunnix, on 04/07/2008, -17/+9Hmmm, when is weather not ***** up? Millions of years before humans there was ***** up weather. Flooding, droughts... Now when the climate is changing we know its caused by us. Why? Because maybe people don't understand climate change, or maybe don't like change in general.

        Out of this whole article I read nothing but "OMG We R Ded!" This guy sounds like hes been drinking the same kool-aid as everyone else who doesn't understand it. Why does he sound like he has the solutions but no proof of the problem? I Agree pollution sucks... I want to get rid of it. We need something better than fossil fuels and fast. But these scare tactics are lame.
        • johnnysaucepn, on 04/07/2008, -2/+10"This guy sounds like hes been drinking the same kool-aid as everyone else who doesn't understand it."
          You're saying that NASA's top climate scientist doesn't understand the situation as well as you? Do you realise how that sounds?
          • doctechnical, on 04/07/2008, -5/+3Um, par for the course? Given some of the major *****-ups NASA has been responsible for (like forgetting whether they're using metric or english units, or mis-grinding a critical lens), I'd take anything they said with a grain of salt. Contrary to popular Digg opinion, NASA is not a bunch of infallible genius saints. Their feet are made of clay.
        • Dunnix, on 04/07/2008, -3/+3I never said "as well as me". Why did this guy not say "look heres the problem... heres where we are ***** up... heres where we need to fix it.." All he said was "we need to fix it..." Co2 is rising.. ok? but Co2 have always been shifting.

          I hear a lot of people saying "ohhhhh NASA... he must be right." But why doesn't he offer anything but what we've all heard before.

          But yes more Taxes because its getting colder outside... and more taxes because its getting warming out side.. and more taxes because theres been a flood.. more taxes cause theres been a drought.. Things are changing... and it must be bad.
          • Murdats, on 04/07/2008, -1/+3because you are still not listening, because nothing is still being done, because it seems that while the message is still important, nothing can be done but repeat it till retards start listening and stop saying "I will trust the people who have a dodgy site linked to big oil making unfounded claims over the scientists who are just trying to screw us for cash"
          • chalkboy, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1What have you done to change things?
      • Magee1205, on 04/07/2008, -8/+1i'm not sure where you are but I'm on earth. From what all these "cooky" scientists have been telling us, earth is in a cooling trend. Take that Al Gore!
      • coyote1284, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Watch out for the (spooky voice) ALKALI RAIN (/voice) that will kill off all crops and aquatic life in the 2010's!
      • HeyLew, on 04/07/2008, -3/+1most of that stuff is caused by government weather manipulation to further a hidden agenda to reduce world population
    • aladrin, on 04/07/2008, -9/+15You got dugg down for that, but that's -exactly- what they're starting to say... That the cooling we're experiencing is a result of global warming and was expected.
      • boxlight, on 04/07/2008, -19/+10If there's a hurricane -- climate change!
        If there's a lot of snow -- climate change!
        If there's no snow -- climate change!
        If there's no hurricanes -- climate change!

        [rolls eyes] Look, how much more tax we need to put on gas to get you guys to shut up?
        • DracoFlameus, on 04/07/2008, -2/+9Of course there is a climate change... theres always a climate change at certain points, but this time it's human made.

          "Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to more than 380 ppm today. These increases are projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the 21st century. It is known that carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 750,000 years. Along with rising methane levels, these changes are anticipated to cause an increase of 1.4–5.6 °C between 1990 and 2100" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change )
          • doctechnical, on 04/07/2008, -8/+4And yet the rise in temperature does not track the rise in CO2. Meaning there must be other factors... perhaps factors that are more important than CO2 levels. Perhaps we should concentrate on understanding EXACTLY what's going on (more research) rather than going off half-cocked and doing everything we can to tank the economy on a guess.
          • Scruffydan, on 04/07/2008, -0/+5correct there are other factors that can change the climate, but every single relevant scientific organization agrees that the CURRENT change in climate is mostly due to humans GHG emissions.
        • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1Do you not see how unbelievably pretentious it is to assume that we can control the Earth's climate like we're in a friggin' Mercedes?

      • didiman, on 04/07/2008, -3/+1yeah I was being sarcastic
        • boxlight, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1i got that, i didn't mean you personally should shut up. Please keep up the sarcasm! :)
      • slashbot, on 04/07/2008, -7/+2Expected? LOL...

        Not what they were saying years ago
      • TrevorBradley, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2That's only a crazy statement if the global average goes down. If there's a regional cooler change and another regional warmer change that's a bit bigger, that's not just an average increase in temperature, that's a shift in environment.
    • gravylookout, on 04/07/2008, -3/+6Maybe that would explain why its already one week into April and there is a half a foot of snow outside. Normally I'd be golfing by now. :(
    • Skooma714, on 04/07/2008, -9/+2So warming will come from cooling?

      I is confuzzled.
      • Scruffydan, on 04/07/2008, -1/+5then leave the science to actual scientists... climate change is incredibly complex and the oversimplified view us non-scientists have of it has been simplified to the point of being unsuitable for us to draw any conclusions.
        • coyote1284, on 04/07/2008, -2/+2That's doesn't stop 90% of Digg from doing it anyways.
      • laserdog, on 04/07/2008, -0/+5If people had to understand how things worked before they became true, 98% of americans couldn't use a microwave.
    • slashbot, on 04/07/2008, -10/+3"Climate change"

      Unless every year we have hits the mean exactly, they can attribute it to "climate change"
    • supernovasky, on 04/07/2008, -2/+17Global cooling? Last I've seen, the trendline is still positive.

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr ...

      just because we are in a down year on warming, does not wipe out the warming trend that has occured over the last 10 years. By that same logic, you could say there was no warming from 1990 to 2000 (but that would be terribly flawed, because you ignore the trend lines in favor of picking out just two data points and comparing them to each other.

      We are not "globally cooling." The trend is still towards warming.

      • S1ngular1ty1, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3You don't understand what he is saying. Global cooling comes from the shut down of the Thermal Haline Conveyor which circulates warm water from the equator throughout the oceans of the world. The shut down happens because global warming causes the ice caps to melt which desalinates the water of the northern oceans effectively preventing the density difference that drives the conveyor system. It hasn't happened yet, but many scientists predict it is coming and they have oceanic measurements that show the desalination is progressing. It has happened before and it will happen again.
    • Scruffydan, on 04/07/2008, -5/+1Your logic has no place here!
    • DrDragun, on 04/07/2008, -3/+23The below graph is mindblowing to conservatives. It has warm and cool cycles AND trends upward over time. To conservatives these 2 traits are mutually exclusive.

      .......................................................o
      ..................................................o
      .................................o............o
      .............................o.....o......o
      ...........o.............o.............o
      .......o......o......o
      ...o..............o.
      o.
      • kymike, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Sounds like you're the one that's being mutually exclusive, to me.
    • Malevolant, on 04/07/2008, -3/+3Sarcastic or not, that's what they are saying, and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. The Earth has periods of warming and cooling, and depending on which expert you're talking to, and which side they are on, there is no definitive proof of anything. It's starting to look like some kind of plan elites created to start taxing carbon output and making sick amounts of money. Seriously, if Al Gore was legit, he wouldn't fly in private jets, have a massive energy bill, etc., etc. I see way too many self-described "environmentalists", talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Leading by example is the best proof of your commitment to whatever it is you believe in. Do as I say, not as I do, is an ideology of a hypocrite and someone who doesn't believe in what they speak of. Until these "leaders" stop contradicting themselves, I'm in the, "Man-made global warming is b.s." camp.

      • libertao, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3IPCC is called the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE for a reason. Global warming has been an inaccurate term not preferred by the scientific community for some time.
  • 360news, on 04/07/2008, -24/+49I hear this ever day. I also hear that this is all BS.
    I am inclined to believe we are in Deep Sh*t.
    There is some very good PR work being done by both sides in this 'debate'.
    My two cents? Trust the NASA scientist
    • BigW, on 04/07/2008, -20/+7We are programmed to think and believe the worst. I personally believe that we don't know enough yet.
      • 360news, on 04/07/2008, -1/+5How right you are - we know next to nothing, however I think (or am programed?) to be concerned that our enviroment is being damaged, and it is better to stop the damage now rather than take the risk of irreversible damage being done to our eco-system.
        • diggrific, on 04/07/2008, -4/+6One of the rules of criss problem solving is to never "act" for the sake of "taking action".

          This means, if you don't know what is fully happening, you still feel compelled to do something....anything. But since you don't know the full situation, you can easily screw things up royally and make a containable incident unmanageable. Fully assess the situation, measure your resources, formulate a plan, and only then act. (emergency worker)

          You may think this doesn't apply, but if you look closely, it applies to many things in life.
          • 360news, on 04/07/2008, -0/+2Hi diggrific
            That it is good sound knowledge, but Im not suggesting we 'take action' as such, but alternatively that we cease (or limit) some potentially dangerous actions we are already taking. Wouldnt it is better to err on the side of caution?
        • DracoFlameus, on 04/07/2008, -1/+4We are already acting. That is the problem. It is not like we are sitting here and doing nothing. We are pumping more and more CO2 into our atmosphere.
          That's like having a war and when the other side calls for peace, telling them that the situation is too difficult to understand to cease fire at the moment.
          • diggrific, on 04/07/2008, -6/+4Your argument's validity relies on the assumption that global warming is man made. You see, that little point of the puzzle is still up for debate. Surely you see that. And since we are still now sure of that piece of evidence, to act now on faulty information may actually cause greater harm. Just I said in my comment, you feel something MUST be done to stop what is yet unproven to be the cause. Your logic on this is a fine example of examining a problem with blinders on and acting on the limited information you see. It may turn out to be right, but it is a dangerous gamble.
          • Murdats, on 04/07/2008, -3/+4@diggrific
            not really, the scientific community has reached consensus
            its just people who have a vested interest and morons who buy into them and think they know more then numerous doctors who have spent much time in the field who are still debating, and by debating I mean talking more then listening.
    • pintomp3, on 04/07/2008, -5/+30the oil industry and coal unions hired the same PR firms the tobacco industry did when they wanted to disprove the link between cigarettes and cancer. they also offer money to scientists to dispute global warming:
      http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/-scientists- ...
      • dracostimpy, on 04/07/2008, -4/+2And the government offers money to scientists to support it, so what's your point? I think it's important to cast out both groups and find those who truly have no economic stake in the debate, specifically college professors from non-state-funded and non-big-oil-funded universities. What I've found is that those who don't have a stake tend to believe the GW hype is greatly overblown.
        • TrevorBradley, on 04/07/2008, -2/+7I agree with your sentiment, but saying that university research funds are "offering money to support a theory" is a pretty whacky way of interpreting research grants. The scientists are supposed to research the data and give a result. And those studies overwhelmingly point in one direction.

          I'm sure there are a few crazy stories of people unethically threatened on having their funding cut for coming up with different conclusions from their peers, but I've not heard of them.
          • dracostimpy, on 04/07/2008, -5/+2What I'm saying is that non-govt and university-funded scientists who didn't get their grants from private donors who happen to be oil execs are probably the most trustworthy sources, given that they can be as empirical and unattached to specific predetermined hypotheses.

            That being the case, I see a trend of non-impugned scholars gravitating toward the "who the ***** do we think we are, GOD?" school of thought that basically acknowledges that we're WAY too stupid to accurately model such complex systems as the global climate. Here are some of those names:

            Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

            Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

            Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

            Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

            Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

            Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

            Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

            Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

            Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

            Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

            Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

            Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

            Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

            Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

            Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

            Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
    • bratterscain, on 04/07/2008, -3/+16Like virii, some of us are just too stupid to see when we're consuming too much and killing that which feeds us. This ***** happens all the time to lesser organisms. It's a recurring theme. One species or society gets too powerful and all consuming, and it overtakes that which takes care of it. Must we do this ***** over and over again? Surely we're smart enough to not phase ourselves out like virii, bacteria and other parasites do. But just looking at posts like this, I can only wonder.
      • Tanath, on 04/07/2008, -4/+1*Viruses.
      • TrevorBradley, on 04/07/2008, -0/+6Take a Cartesian graph. Plot an exponential curve. Plot a linear line with a slope near zero. At some point these points are going to intersect. That's not arrogance, it's simple mathematics and resource management. Some form of ***** was going to hit the fan sooner or later unless we moved our resource growth into space. It appears that atmospheric CO2 was the first exponential curve we can actually see effects from. It won't be the last.

        Sometimes I think that the digg climate change skeptics are really in the closet, they know the data is good, but the consequences, the REAL consequences nobody is talking about, are too scary to contemplate. At some point, humanity will a choice. (A) Abandon the exponential growth market based economy and start using our recycling centers or landfills for resource gathering, or (B) head into space to continue exponential growth. That's just too terrifying to contemplate and nobody is going to advocate that as a reason to slow down our growth. But it is a reality we will need to deal with someday.
    • eShinn, on 04/07/2008, -1/+6Well its not as if anyone's going to spend millions on P.R. to let you know this are "Just Peachy" unless there's something seriously wrong.
    • Scruffydan, on 04/07/2008, -1/+3 you don't even need to trust NASA if you don't want to. Every relevant scientific institution says basically the same thing.
    • bodegas, on 04/07/2008, -6/+0Trust the MIT climatologist, he says the opposite and has some actual convincing reasons for why.
      http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Swindle ...
      • Scruffydan, on 04/07/2008, -0/+7Do you mean Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT?

        He said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed. He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warm ...
  • caruso, on 04/07/2008, -13/+11'NASA's top climate scientist'... I'm gonna trust what he says... It was innevitable what we were doing to this planet was gonna **** it up eventually. no matter who says what..

    The world seems to be wising up to the problem though, especially after seeing how good modern day fuel consumption is. and new technology coming out to lower power usage in every aspect of our lives.
    • buddyw, on 04/07/2008, -6/+2Lets see how that works out:

      You are on earth and the climate average temperature is going up ~1 degree/century by your calculations.
      >Trust NASA Scientist
      uh-oh the NASA scientist got metric and imperial units mixed up - you are now stuck helplessly drifting through space orbiting the sun.
    • dracostimpy, on 04/07/2008, -5/+7BREAKING: Different top NASA scientist says global warming is a myth.
      BREAKING #2: NASA funding cut drastically by Congress.
      BREAKING #3: Top NASA scientist fired by NASA, Congressional funding restored.

      Or did you think NASA was immune to politically influence? Silly rabbit!

      Government-funded science for dummies:
      STEP 1: Figure out which side your bread is buttered on.
      STEP 2: Scrape up any evidence you can to support that side of the bread.
      STEP 3: ???
      STEP 4: PROFIT!
      • nick111, on 04/07/2008, -3/+4The trouble with that little synopsis is, it's all a load of ***** lies. You don't have a shred of evidence for any of it.

        You just don't want to admit that environmentalists have been right all a long, and that you... are a stupid *****
        • dracostimpy, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1I find your arguments citing such u