Climategate

[steelish]

Global leaders have been meeting on the subject of Global Warming...aka Climate Change.

Here is my theory/belief:
This planet has a natural life cycle in which the climate fluctuates. Our time on earth has been a mere blip on the horizon and we haven't been keeping data long enough to determine if we are truly having an effect on the planet's life cycle in a negative way. I think we should step back and do a lot more research. It will be thousands and thousands of years before we can determine with any reasonable conviction that we indeed can cause changes in the natural cycle. I feel the entire Cap and Trade is a huge mistake designed to take money from the more "affluent" nations and spread it to third world countries. This is not a "fix". This will not solve anything except to make the affluent countries poorer while the third world countries remain poor still.

Where do YOU stand on this issue?

[Thorne]

This planet has a natural life cycle in which the climate fluctuates. Our time on earth has been a mere blip on the horizon and we haven't been keeping data long enough to determine if we are truly having an effect on the planet's life cycle in a negative way.

I used to think this way, too. But evidence is increasingly pointing to the fact that mankind is, at the very least, making a natural situation worse. Possibly much worse.

I think we should step back and do a lot more research. It will be thousands and thousands of years before we can determine with any reasonable conviction that we indeed can cause changes in the natural cycle.

The problem here is that we don't HAVE thousands of years! The problem is happening NOW. The future is just around the corner. It's even possible, as some are claiming, that we have already passed the "tipping point" and that there is little or nothing we can do to stop it. The best we can hope for is to lessen the effects and prepare for the consequences.

I feel the entire Cap and Trade is a huge mistake designed to take money from the more "affluent" nations and spread it to third world countries. This is not a "fix". This will not solve anything except to make the affluent countries poorer while the third world countries remain poor still.

I agree with you here. In fact, virtually any government sponsored and controlled "fix" is probably a bad idea. Any time you have politicians and industrialists climbing into bed together, you know that they are NOT the one's who will get screwed.

[Wiscoman]

A couple of things; first, the "this is all natural" thing is wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Second, it doesn't strike me as extremely rational to believe that we can pump literally millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and think that nothing will happen.

On cap and trade, we already do it for sulphur dioxide to control acid rain. It works, it hasn't driven anyone out of business, and it hasn't made any nation any poorer. If anything, it helps generate wealth by creating a new markets complete with new technologies. This isn't some wildly speculative economic/environmental theory, it's a tested method that's shown real world results.

[steelish]

I used to think this way, too. But evidence is increasingly pointing to the fact that mankind is, at the very least, making a natural situation worse. Possibly much worse.

What's the evidence? Forgive me for being obtuse, but I've never seen/heard concrete evidence proving anything one way or another

The problem here is that we don't HAVE thousands of years! The problem is happening NOW. The future is just around the corner. It's even possible, as some are claiming, that we have already passed the "tipping point" and that there is little or nothing we can do to stop it. The best we can hope for is to lessen the effects and prepare for the consequences.

The future has ALWAYS been just around the corner. In the late 70s, they claimed the next Ice Age was coming...DANGER, DANGER! (it didn't happen) Then they said the planet would be destroyed through Global Warming within the next 10 years (it didn't happen). Now, we're being told that the polar ice caps will be completely gone by 2021 (or something like that) if we don't do something NOW...DANGER, DANGER! Sorry, I just don't buy into it.

[steelish]

A couple of things; first, the "this is all natural" thing is wishful thinking. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

I never said "this is all natural". What I said is that my theory is the planet has a natural life cycle and it's too soon in mankind's existence to PROVE that we have that much of a negative effect on it's cycle.

Second, it doesn't strike me as extremely rational to believe that we can pump literally millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and think that nothing will happen.

Again, that is not what I said. It's not that I believe we have absolutely no effect whatsoever...it's that I find it difficult to believe that in the last 200 years of technological advancement, that we influenced the planet to that degree.

On cap and trade, we already do it for sulphur dioxide to control acid rain. It works, it hasn't driven anyone out of business, and it hasn't made any nation any poorer. If anything, it helps generate wealth by creating a new markets complete with new technologies. This isn't some wildly speculative economic/environmental theory, it's a tested method that's shown real world results.

It's easy to find both pros and cons

[Thorne]

What's the evidence? Forgive me for being obtuse, but I've never seen/heard concrete evidence proving anything one way or another

The evidence is there, in thousands of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the kinds of things that denialists, and journalists, don't like to talk about. I'm not saying there isn't still some element of doubt, but the more I see, the less doubtful I've become.

The future has ALWAYS been just around the corner. In the late 70s, they claimed the next Ice Age was coming...DANGER, DANGER! (it didn't happen) Then they said the planet would be destroyed through Global Warming within the next 10 years (it didn't happen). Now, we're being told that the polar ice caps will be completely gone by 2021 (or something like that) if we don't do something NOW...DANGER, DANGER! Sorry, I just don't buy into it.

Most of the information you're referring to did NOT come from scientists, but from the media, who condensed, consolidated and confabulated the information to make a more sensational story. Back in the 70's some scientists determined that there appeared to be periodicity in the cycle of Earth's ice ages, and that we were heading towards a new ice age, in a couple of thousand years. That's NOT how the story was reported. Likewise, no reputable scientist ever claimed that the planet would be destroyed through global warming. Habitats will change, species will be stressed, some to the point of extinction, ocean levels will rise. In short, things will go on pretty much as they have been for the last 4 billion years. The problem is, it's OUR habitat that will change, OUR species which will be stressed, OUR homes destroyed in the rising tides.

It's quite possible that the Arctic Ice Cap will disappear, during the summers, well before 2021. <shrug> It's happened before, even without our help. It will reconstitute during winter, just as always, just not so thick. It's doubtful that Antarctica will thaw by 2021, though. That's one HELL of a lot of ice! It may melt, along with the Greenland Ice Cap, by 2100. That will be a problem, for sure. All that extra water, pouring into the oceans. Well, at least it will help to dilute the carbolic acid accumulating from all the excess CO2 absorption.

No, there's no doubt now that the Earth is warming. There's little doubt that mankind is making the problem worse, even if we're not the primary cause. But there's also little likelihood that the worst-case scenarios, the ones the media love to blast all over the airwaves, will come to pass.

[steelish]

The evidence is there, in thousands of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the kinds of things that denialists, and journalists, don't like to talk about. I'm not saying there isn't still some element of doubt, but the more I see, the less doubtful I've become.

like this one? Or maybe these?

There's little doubt that mankind is making the problem worse, even if we're not the primary cause. But there's also little likelihood that the worst-case scenarios, the ones the media love to blast all over the airwaves, will come to pass.

EXACTLY

[Ozme52]

I agree steelish... the Vikings (with inifinite humor?) named a northern island Greenland, settled there, and also settled in the then balmy climes of Newfoundland.

It's been warmer, it's been colder. We've been keeping close track all of what, 200 years?

The Sahara was lusher when it was warmer and less water trapped in the icecaps. Even some 2300 years ago. Remember Carthage? (Well probably not, thanks to the Romans. Who says violence doesn't solve anything?...) Well, they were every bit as powerful and prosperous, in the Sahara. It was a different climate.

Remember that neolithic "Iceman" recently uncovered by a retreating glacier, who fell and died in the Alps... wearing relatively mild weather garb? He was far far higher than need be unless the climate offered opportunity based resources.

And the dinosaurs must have been farting a lot of greenhouse gases back in their time.

Remember Krakatoa? Vesuvius? Mt. St. Helens? A volcano can pour far more tonnage into the air in mere moments than can humanity despite all our efforts. Remember the Dark Ages? Many historians now believe it really meant dark ages. When the amount of light getting through the volcanic dust clouds sent into the air was reduced in the northern hemisphere. I can see it now, a really big volcano goes off, reducing captured heat, and we have to shut off all the CO2 scrubbers to help keep greenhouse gases high to retain more heat.

All that said, do we have an impact? Of course we do, but we are neither the cause nor the solution. Can we do some things to mitigate the impact? Of course we can and should. Are there things we should be doing for other reasons, (like getting off of foreign oil,) that we are promoting as a cure for global warming? Yes, we should, so I don't have an issue with many of the conference's goals...

But mostly I think it is our very hubris that somehow we are to blame that will get us in trouble again later, when the sun cools again, or we miss an opportunity because we're blinded by our own conceit.

[VaAugusta]

Maybe it is natural for the earth's climate to fluctuate. Maybe it is natural for species to die out. But in the face of this, as a human, would you not want to attempt to preserve the human race from going extinct?

I find it strange that people can be so against trying to retain the world in a way that is suitable for humanity.

[Wiscoman]

I never said "this is all natural". What I said is that my theory is the planet has a natural life cycle and it's too soon in mankind's existence to PROVE that we have that much of a negative effect on it's cycle.

And I said there was absolutely no proof of this hypothesis. All you have as evidence is wishful thinking.

Again, that is not what I said. It's not that I believe we have absolutely no effect whatsoever...it's that I find it difficult to believe that in the last 200 years of technological advancement, that we influenced the planet to that degree.

No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument.

It's easy to find both pros and cons

It'd be a lot easier to believe the cons if we didn't have proof that it's all untrue.

On a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here

[Lion]

I'm in the Climate change is caused by humans camp. But I know I don't know about the whole thing, as with almost most of the people I've talked to (and political talk show hosts and politicians). I'd rather hear what scientists have to say about the matter then some governor tbh.

But screw the earth, be selfish and look as far as the confines of your city, and there is still good reasons to start reducing emitions. Thankfully I haven't been to a city in North America with high pollution levels, but the population needs to be proactive on energy waste.

I've lived for a few months in Karachi. The smell in the air is disgusting, there is so much man made pollution from cars, factories, power plants. Buildings darken because of the smog, your white shirt will get dusty after just a short time wearing it, and the health problems are numerous.

This problem isn't isolated to third world nations. An article recently noted the air pollution in Hong Kong, it became bad enough that a haze seems to appear over the skyline, when a few years ago, this was not an issue.

LA is another example of a city plagued with air pollution.


So while you don't care about climate change, or think it's a naturally occuring phenomenon, at least realise that in the local level, we collectively need to address how to reduce emissions. Cities like Karachi and Hong Kong didn't have this issue 50 years ago, humans can affect their immediate environment that quickly

[IAN 2411]

I saw a National Geographic documentary about two years ago that changed my way of thinking on this so called greenhouse gasses. There were two scientists working in very different areas of science, and if it had not been through a chance meeting the climate change would never have been made clearer.

One scientist was working in Greenland, he was boring holes deep into the ground, and he was extracting information about life before mankind as we know it. He was boring I believe some one hundred metres, and he found not just one ice age but many, and his theory was that parts of the earth were in for another, and possibly in the next ten to twenty years. To be precise the good old UK and I am happy to say for once the Europeans get what we get and that is cold.

Now the other scientist was an oceanographer, and he was doing tests in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. He found that the Gulf Stream was slowing down, and it was already slower by 30% than when records were first taken. There is a cycle that is called the conveyer belt, and when the warm waters reach Newfoundland the heavy salt water turns the current East. Then it turns and goes back south touching the western edge of Europe, and that helps to give Europe and especially the UK its warm weather. Due to heavy rainfall over the past ten to twenty years in northern Europe, a lot of fresh water has flowed north, and that has diluted the heavy salt content south of Newfoundland. This is causing a lot of the warm water to escape north and thus slowing the conveyer belt. If at all the conveyer belt stops North American weather will change, and so too will Europe’s weather. The UK is on the same Parallel as Canada and the Gulf of Alaska, it will not be an ice age as such, but you can believe it will be cold and Alaskan weather.


The Gulf Stream, together with its northern extension towards Europe, the North Atlantic Drift, is a powerful, warm, and swift Atlantic ocean current that originates in the Gulf of Mexico, exits through the Strait of Florida, and follows the eastern coastlines of the United States and Newfoundland before crossing the Atlantic Ocean. The process of western intensification causes the Gulf Stream to be a northward accelerating current offshore the east coast of North America. At about 30°W, 40°N, it splits in two, with the northern stream crossing to northern Europe and the southern stream recirculating off West Africa. The Gulf Stream influences the climate of the east coast of North America from Florida to Newfoundland, and the west coast of Europe. Although there has been recent debate, there is consensus that the climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be; and that this is due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream. It is part of the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Its presence has led to the development of strong cyclones of all types, both within the atmosphere and within the ocean. The Gulf Stream is also a significant potential source of renewable power generation.


To sum up is it due to mankind? Well I very much doubt it, and I think it is probably just another chapter in the Earths cycle. If it gets cold we will survive because man can create a warm environment, it is evolution and you cannot stop that, we are not dinosaurs. There are too many natural releases of gasses and smoke emissions for the Earth to compete with. Remember if both sides of the Atlantic are frozen then there will be hardly any fresh water diluting the south of Newfoundland, the Gulf Stream starts flowing again, and just like it did thousands of years ago. Job done and it will be another climate change, and no doubt by then someone will be complaining that the ice is melting. FULL CIRCLE.

Regards ian

[SadisticNature]

It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

[Midnytedreams]

Just recently the Scientific research that has been progress since 1970 by the U.N has found to have been tampered with. If you want to know the truth follow the money, those estimates in your links are now outdated the recent figure in in the trillions. Who is to get the money world wide but the same companies that pollute the most

In 1980 the government of United States gave billions for developement of clean energy
The EV1 an electrical car was made, it was not polluting, you could only lease them not buy them. Why becuase as soon as the government money stopped . All the cars were seized by the company and destroyed.

You can get a patent for anything from the government , even an idea or program, but try to get a patent on a self substaining vehicle {needing no out side power source} and the doors close. The technology is already there it has been since the 1980, Why is it not used because of power.

The same delegates and scientists who started the global warming scare in the 1970s now have the power, the secound suggestion they made at the conference was a world bank. one currency. Look at Europe now ...one currency... and they {the people in power in government}are now discussing the same for the united states.

The man standing on the street yelling, the world is coming to an end, wearing rags.
Has been replaced by the man in the 2000 dollar suit and private airplane stating it.

Ask yourself this the world is a huge place, of all the places , why was the middle east the cradle of civilization, simple because, at one time it was lush and fertile not sand, this happened way before automobiles and plants spi lling toxins into the air.

The evidence is in in the last 7 years the earth has cooled not heated up, yes some areas have got hotter some cooler but that is the way its always been.I personally think the Myans didnt just disappear they just moved to a better climate .

here is a site you might want to check out

http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/index.html

[SadisticNature]

The evidence is that the climate is changing.

That doesn't give anyone the right to on no evidence at all pick their own reason and require everyone to back it.

Ask yourself this, if the middle east was the cradle of civilization because long ago the climate was cooler and it was lush and more fertile, what caused the heating long before the introduction of all these gasses? Why has the reason suddenly changed?

Ice Ages also don't happen in ten to twenty years, there is ample evidence they happen over periods of 10,000's of years with glacial movements and gradual temperature change.

Anyone claiming an ice age in 10 to 20 years is not someone who's work should be taken seriously unless they have solid evidence on specific mechanisms for something that has never before happened on that pace in human history.

Also ice age seems to the exact opposite of global warming which contradicts most of the evidence on global temperature increase.

As for the gulf stream slowing it does fluctuate based on certain tides so I'd have to see the time period of the data. Again this seems to be indicating a net decrease in temperature which is contrary to what world measurements show.

[Wiscoman]

It's the pick a side and support it blindly game.

Only on one side, unfortunately.

Lets establish a question and some facts so we can actually discuss this problem reasonably:

Fact: The temperature of the earth does have natural cycles.

Evidence: Ice Ages and glacial retreats due to global temperature retreat are well documented long before humans were pumping any chemicals into the atmosphere.

Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.

Fact: The quantity of glacial Ice in Antartica has been measured since a point of time in the 1970's. The highest recorded measurement occured in Winter 2008.

Evidence: Unfortunately I have misplaced the link, you're welcome to google it.

I did. Not a fact.

Fact: There exist controlled experiments showing that in atmospheric models the introduction of certain chemicals can cause temperature change.


Opinion: Adding -gate onto the end of every potential scandal is really damn old. I mean has anyone noticed the Nixon presidency was actually one of the better ones? Ended the disaster that was Vietnam, great international presence in China and Russia showing the communism failed as a method of providing benefits to the average person (Kitchen debates for one). It's getting a little old already.

A-freakin'-men.

Opinion: I'm not opposed to getting a lot of these emissions reduced regardless of causing temperature changes. But anyone who thinks China should work on reducing C02 emissions while continuing to pump out S02 (the old nasty soot in the air that coats the inside of the lungs common with 19th century industrialism), has the environmental problems backwards.

No argument there.

Opinion: The connections between temperature change and global disaster are wild hypothesis at best. This is the area where there are huge gaps in the scientific evidence. While the science is good on establishing the temperature change is occurring and has significant evidence that supports the hypothesis that its occurring as a result of man-made pollutants, It's not clear that increasing the average temperature is going to result in:

1) More and worse Tsunami's
2) More and worse hurricanes
3) Higher Winds
4) Other global disasters.

We have no good models that describe how that temperature increase will be distributed in water, or even how much the temperature in water increases. If its a uniform increase, the differentials that cause conditions for these disasters will not be affected.

Not surprising, since Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, not the climate. For the rest, the American Meteorological Society disagrees.

Opinion: Rising sea levels are probable, this presents problems for many coastal cities and small island nations. These problems need to be dealt with. My personal view is evacuation and building in a new safer area is a far better use of money than trying to spend a fortune to little or no effect on combating C02.

The introduction of fresh water into seawater decreases the salinity of the oceans, causing massive problems with the global food supply.

Opinion: C02 is a much harder problem than S02 and other such gases. C02 and other greenhouse gasses are easy to natural produce. C02 is an emission from human breathing for instance. Methane is a product of animal waste. Any plan to deal with greenhouse gasses needs to get right down to an individual level, this isn't a few big factories causing problems, it's a massive system with a number of players approximately equal to the population of the planet that needs to be regulated internationally. The politics of this is likely an unsolvable problem. International Efforts are generally rather token, look at the world bank, IMF and UN for examples of bodies that are largely ignored.

The problem isn't that greenhouse gases exist, but that there is too much of them. I can take a couple aspirin and be fine, but if I take a bottle, it'll kill me. The fact that a small amount of something is harmless does not automatically mean that it's harmless in any amount.

[IAN 2411]

The evidence is that the climate is changing.



Ice Ages also don't happen in ten to twenty years, there is ample evidence they happen over periods of 10,000's of years with glacial movements and gradual temperature change.

Anyone claiming an ice age in 10 to 20 years is not someone who's work should be taken seriously unless they have solid evidence on specific mechanisms for something that has never before happened on that pace in human history.

Also ice age seems to the exact opposite of global warming which contradicts most of the evidence on global temperature increase.

As for the gulf stream slowing it does fluctuate based on certain tides so I'd have to see the time period of the data. Again this seems to be indicating a net decrease in temperature which is contrary to what world measurements show.

It is a fact that Europe and the Uk have been getting colder over the last ten years. Forget about the few burning hot summers, records show that there was the same red hot summers in the late ninteen forties. I never said that the ice age that i was speaking about would only take 10 - 20 years, I said that it was a possibility in that amount of time. The Gulf Stream has been slowing down over many years, the records were stating that if the Gulf stream kept on slowing at the same speed it would stop in 10 - 20 years, and neither did i say a global ice age. Basic geograph, an adverse weather condition in one part of the world, will cause adverse weather conditions up to 12,000 miles away, and that is almost half way around the world. Part of my post above was copied and pasted directly from the latest encyclopedia, we in the UK are dependent on the Gulf Steam, and it is a fact and i havent got time to teach you basic geography. If in fact there is global warming, there is more rain, that leads to flooded rivers, the rivers of Europe outlets are in the north. That brings us back to the theory the scientists were talking about, and the fact is the Gulf Stream has slowed down. In stead of trying to score quick points against other post writers, read the posts first and then check the facts.

Regards ian.


Give respect to receive respect

[SadisticNature]

Yes I agree the arctic ice is receding. The ice I was talking about was the antarctic.

As for the other points, I'd like to referred to specific documents. Societies even Scientific ones tend to play politics with a lot of the political statements. There is an awful lot of situations where the evidence isn't enough to conclude something yet and they claim the conclusion anyways, which happens far less in actual papers.

As for there being no evidence at all of us being in a temperature cycle, that is false. The fact is there is evidence that the earth is constantly in a cycle with trend, the problem is we don't have enough information to conclusively state what that trend is, because there is a lot of noise in the data, and we only have a very small time period to look at.

Again, temperature change happens on massive scales, so 10-20 years of data is basically on the level of a blip and isn't really something to take all that seriously, especially when it has notable exceptions.

[Wiscoman]

Yes I agree the arctic ice is receding. The ice I was talking about was the antarctic.

I misread it... Not that I can figure out what difference it makes. Running the search again...

Still not a fact.

As for the other points, I'd like to referred to specific documents. Societies even Scientific ones tend to play politics with a lot of the political statements. There is an awful lot of situations where the evidence isn't enough to conclude something yet and they claim the conclusion anyways, which happens far less in actual papers.

I call foul on that one. You're dismissing evidence you don't like based on your ability to read their collective mind.

As for there being no evidence at all of us being in a temperature cycle, that is false. The fact is there is evidence that the earth is constantly in a cycle with trend, the problem is we don't have enough information to conclusively state what that trend is, because there is a lot of noise in the data, and we only have a very small time period to look at.

Knowing there's a cycle isn't the same as proving we're in a certain point in that cycle. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence the increase in atmospheric CO2 mirrors the increase in temperatures over the years. I'm sorry, but thinking this is coincidental seems a little unreasonable to me.

Again, temperature change happens on massive scales, so 10-20 years of data is basically on the level of a blip and isn't really something to take all that seriously, especially when it has notable exceptions.

It's over century's worth of data.

[Wiscoman]

The evidence is in in the last 7 years the earth has cooled not heated up, yes some areas have got hotter some cooler but that is the way its always been.I personally think the Myans didnt just disappear they just moved to a better climate .

That's just plain untrue.

2000-09 may be warmest decade on record, U.N. weather agency says

This decade is on track to become the warmest since records began in 1850, and 2009 could rank among the five warmest years, the U.N. weather agency reported Tuesday, the second day of a 192-nation climate conference.

Only the United States and Canada experienced cooler conditions than average, the World Meteorological Organization said.

In central Africa and southern Asia, this will probably be the warmest year, but overall, 2009 will be "about the fifth-warmest year on record," said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the organization...

[steelish]

On a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here

lol. No, that's proof positive of puritan attitudes dying out. (Thank God!)

[Lion]

on a less serious note, you can find proof-positive of global warming here

lol

[denuseri]

There are also scientists saying that the increase in Co2 is cuased by the increasing temperatures and that the true scource of any temperature increases has as yet to be identified; though my bet is on the relationship between the sun and our planets geo-thermal action. Its quite possible a spurious coorelation has been drawn between Co2 and temperature fluctuations.


Outside of that, we have reams of data collected about what the climate did in the past on this planet. Its preserved quite nicely for those wishing to go find it, especially in fosseil records and geological substrates.

Can we as humans influence the enviroment?

We allready have in a multitude of ways, just look at the vast changes in fauna (I use fauna in the definition of biologists in that it includes animals and plants) and terrain features as well as water distribution that took place in North America from our presence.

Have we directly changed the overall atmospheric composition to date as a species on a significant level?

I think science is still colating data, were as those with political agendas are using scare tactics to influence the general populace for their own advantage. (unfortunately it appears as if some scientists in general are not as ethical as they would like us to believe and quite capable of allowing their personal political views to influence their data) As we so recently found out to be true in a few cases. Funny how the politicians instead of crying foul to the scientists in question and holding them up to public scrutiny are instead crying foul on the whistler blower who uncovered their transgressions.

But as Lion mentioned, there is still no reason whatsoever that we shouldnt take our responsiblity for the planet as its dominant species very very seriously.

After all its not like we are in a position to get up just yet and row row our boat to a different island.

[Thorne]

There are also scientists saying that the increase in Co2 is cuased by the increasing temperatures and that the true scource of any temperature increases has as yet to be identified; though my bet is on the relationship between the sun and our planets geo-thermal action.

Sorry, that's just wrong. The link between greenhouse gases and atmospheric warming is solid. In fact, there is little evidence that there is any link between the sun and geo-thermal action. Aside from electromagnetic radiation from the sun, only tidal effects are felt on Earth, and the moon has a larger effect than the sun. And while tidal effects cause friction, which causes heat, these factors are relatively constant and cannot be causing current global warming.

Outside of that, we have reams of data collected about what the climate did in the past on this planet. Its preserved quite nicely for those wishing to go find it, especially in fosseil records and geological substrates.

Exactly! And the data shows that the average global temperature and the average CO2 content of the atmosphere are rising at a higher rate than ever before.

Have we directly changed the overall atmospheric composition to date as a species on a significant level?

Yes, we have. Think smog. Think acid rain. Think nuclear fallout, from Alamogordo to Chernobyl.

I think science is still colating data, were as those with political agendas are using scare tactics to influence the general populace for their own advantage.

This is also true. Science will ALWAYS be collating data. That's what scientists do! That doesn't mean there isn't enough data now to define a trend. But political scare tactics are being used, as well as pressure on those who MAY have evidence which contradicts SOME of the science.

Funny how the politicians instead of crying foul to the scientists in question and holding them up to public scrutiny are instead crying foul on the whistler blower who uncovered their transgressions.

This was not a whistle-blower, this was a hacker. He illegally stole e-documents which did not belong to him. He should be arrested and prosecuted as a criminal. And the "transgressions" are a few phrases which have been taken out of context and blown up into a vast conspiracy. It's a tempest in a teapot.

[steelish]

Again, there's evidence of human-caused warming, but no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle. This is a fact in search of a context.

Huh? No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument. Ok - now that I've gotten that out of the way, saying there's no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle is the same thing as saying the earth isn't natural. How is it possible? There's no circle of life in your universe? There's give and take in nature EVERYWHERE and the planet's atmosphere is a part of that.

[Wiscoman]

Huh? No offense, but your lack of imagination isn't enough to sway me to your argument. Ok - now that I've gotten that out of the way, saying there's no evidence at all that we're in a natural cycle is the same thing as saying the earth isn't natural. How is it possible? There's no circle of life in your universe? There's give and take in nature EVERYWHERE and the planet's atmosphere is a part of that.

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

[IAN 2411]

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

I believe that it was me that started this Earth cycles in my first post. well let me put in another two pence worth. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter; irispective of what country you live in they are the same, they are a form of earth cycle, and it is needed to replenish life. Monsoon season in India another cycle, and what about tornado's in the southern states of America, another form of cycle, the same time most years.

If you had read my first post properly, you would have realised that the scientist boring holes was talking about the climate getting hotter and then colder and so on and so forth, and over hundreds if not thousands of years, and that once again that is cycles. Holly trees give berries three years in a row, and on the forth year there are none for that tree, it is to replenish life,that is a cycle and a holly tree is part of the earth. How many more examples do you want?

Regards Ian

[steelish]

As I said, the fact of a cycle isn't evidence that you're in a certain point in that cycle. 10 am comes every day, without fail, but that's hardly proof that it's 10 am right now. Saying "there's a cycle," doesn't actually explain anything unless you can give evidence to show that we're in a certain point in that cycle. Otherwise, all you're saying is the logical equivalent of "There are clocks, therefore it's 10 am."

Er, no. What it is...is the equivalent of saying, "There are clocks, therefore you can see the passage of time with them"

Without knowing the COMPLETE life cycle of the planet, it is impossible to know at what stage of it we exist. So with that thought in mind, how are the scientists to know that their data is correct? Besides which, we now know that many of them LIED.

[Wiscoman]

I believe that it was me that started this Earth cycles in my first post. well let me put in another two pence worth. Spring, summer, autumn, and winter; irispective of what country you live in they are the same, they are a form of earth cycle, and it is needed to replenish life. Monsoon season in India another cycle, and what about tornado's in the southern states of America, another form of cycle, the same time most years.

If you had read my first post properly, you would have realised that the scientist boring holes was talking about the climate getting hotter and then colder and so on and so forth, and over hundreds if not thousands of years, and that once again that is cycles. Holly trees give berries three years in a row, and on the forth year there are none for that tree, it is to replenish life,that is a cycle and a holly tree is part of the earth. How many more examples do you want?

Regards Ian

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't follow logically at all. First, I point out -- pretty much inarguably -- that the existence of a cyclical event does nothing to prove where you are in that cycle. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that the current warming is a result of that cycle. None. Anywhere.

All you're doing is stating the same thing over again -- climate moves in cycles, which is no answer at all -- and adding more examples of yet other cycles. This doesn't do anything to remove the logical leap you're making here.

Again, what you're saying is that, since clocks exist, it must be 10 am.

[Wiscoman]

Er, no. What it is...is the equivalent of saying, "There are clocks, therefore you can see the passage of time with them"

Which does nothing to prove this is the result of a cycle.

Without knowing the COMPLETE life cycle of the planet, it is impossible to know at what stage of it we exist.

What's this have to do with something that's cyclical? If it happened before and it's a cycle, it'll happen again. Otherwise, it's not a cycle, is it?

So with that thought in mind, how are the scientists to know that their data is correct? Besides which, we now know that many of them LIED.

No, we don't know that at all. Albert Einstein once said, "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." Taken out of context -- as I just did -- this would seem to suggest quite a bit of dishonesty on his part. Clearly, this debunks his theories. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be happy to know that they were attacked by a wild theory that is now debunked.