Climategate

[Thorne]

Which is why the scientists shouldnt let the politicians jump the gun for them via the media when they make statements of theory that have as of yet to be proven as facts.

Another of my pet peeves, here. You do not prove theories with facts. An hypothesis must explain the facts, all of the facts, and predict future facts, before it can be considered a valid theory. The layman/Hollywood definition of theory is completely wrong. A scientific theory is about as close as you can get to explaining the real world.

Like humanity is the sole cuase of global warming when they still are not sure that we are.

I doubt that anyone outside of the media (and politicians, of course) are claiming that humanity is the sole cause of global warming. But the evidence does show that we are a significant contributor.

[leo9]

Which is why the scientists shouldnt let the politicians jump the gun for them via the media when they make statements of theory that have as of yet to be proven as facts.

Like humanity is the sole cuase of global warming when they still are not sure that we are.

Scientists are never "sure" in the sense you mean. Even if every known scrap of evidence supports a theory, a good scientist always keeps in mind that something might be discovered tomorrow that would undermine it. The only advice any honest scientifist can ever give is "The best evidence we have is that X is the case."

Politicians understand this, and base their decisions on the probabilities. So do we all in matters of common sense. If your doctor told you the evidence was 90% that you had a life-threatening condition, you wouldn't tell him to wait till he was sure before treating it: anyone can see that it would only be 100% certain when you died.

The only people who demand 100% certainty in science are those with a financial or ideological interest in attacking a theory, like creationists and AGW deniers, because they know that that demand can never be met. And the only people who proclaim any theory to be 100% certain are journalists; the scientists who they interview will always tell them the odds, but "as certain as the evidence allows" doesn't make as good a headline as "SCIENTIST PROVES..."

[Thorne]

And the only people who proclaim any theory to be 100% certain are journalists; the scientists who they interview will always tell them the odds, but "as certain as the evidence allows" doesn't make as good a headline as "SCIENTIST PROVES..."

I know I've told this story before, though perhaps not here:

During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, both before and after, reporters for the networks repeatedly asked climate and weather experts whether global warming had caused Katrina to become so strong. All answered with a definitive, "Unlikely" or "Probably not."

Then someone asked the question of a "climate specialist." His response was that it was absolutely certain that global warming had caused Katrina to grow from a category three to a category five! No mention of data which supported his statement, no clarification of just what kind of "specialist" he was, just that statement.

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

[SadisticNature]

I know I've told this story before, though perhaps not here:

During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, both before and after, reporters for the networks repeatedly asked climate and weather experts whether global warming had caused Katrina to become so strong. All answered with a definitive, "Unlikely" or "Probably not."

Then someone asked the question of a "climate specialist." His response was that it was absolutely certain that global warming had caused Katrina to grow from a category three to a category five! No mention of data which supported his statement, no clarification of just what kind of "specialist" he was, just that statement.

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

And chances are good the specialty was in political advocacy at that.

On the other hand, if you focus on quality sources like peer-reviewed journals you can see all sorts of evidence that man-made chemicals are altering the Earth's temperature, and you can't see a single good study saying they don't without looking back several years. It's not because politics or other factors drive the agenda, its that those models have been refuted through further study.

We can't model everything that happens in the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean we don't understand enough of the picture to reach a meaningful conclusion. Building a nuke required splitting the atom, but it doesn't require understanding the subsubatomic particles, just the subatomic ones.

[Thorne]

We can't model everything that happens in the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean we don't understand enough of the picture to reach a meaningful conclusion. Building a nuke required splitting the atom, but it doesn't require understanding the subsubatomic particles, just the subatomic ones.

It's worth remembering, too, that there were scientists, reputable ones, who were afraid that setting off the first atomic bomb could destroy the atmosphere. The science said it was extremely unlikely but, as noted earlier, scientists rarely can say something is impossible. There were also fears about that big collider in Switzerland. But it's already been run and, lo and behold, no black holes eating up the Earth!

The point is, there will always be those on the margins who will play up the extreme possibilities, whether through honest concern or simply to get their faces on the news. Just remember: while a 99.999% probability may not be the same as absolutely true, it's a hell of a lot more likely than driving home from work without having an accident. Worrying about the .001% will keep you huddled in your home, afraid to open your eyes.

[leo9]

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

And this is where deniers get their idea that climatologists are a monolithic conspiracy that only repeat the party line.

[steelish]

Watch this video

Oh, and how about this one?

Hmmm...

And what about these experts?

No, there's no conspiracy!


Wow

And then there's this

[FrgnSwtc]

And this is where deniers get their idea that climatologists are a monolithic conspiracy that only repeat the party line.

I agree, to think that there's a plot against the good and unsuspecting taxpayers is a bit of a stretch.
There's been arguments on both sides since the Treaty of Rome (1957) from solid scientific research as well obscure ranters (God bless internet).

Besides, if there's a country in the western world far behind it's peers in research, investment and successes where sustainability is concerned is the US.

Respectfully,

FS

[Thorne]

Watch this video

No one questions the fact that plants grow better with CO2. But did that demonstration show the impact of additional heat? What about additional rain causing of higher humidity levels in the air? Would the plants be able to grow where they have grown before if these conditions change? None of these questions are demonstrated in the video. Yet they are critical as to whether crops we need for survival could still grow on our farmland!

Oh, and how about this one?

Dr. Idso is not a climatologist, though his field of study does include the interaction of CO2 with agriculture. But as I noted above, that doesn't mean the plants will continue to grow where we need them to grow. Also, the Center he represents (and founded) refuses to reveal the sources of its funding, and information suggests that a significant portion may come from big oil. Hardly a disinterested party!

He states that CO2 "could not be the primary cause of glacial/interglacial temperature changes", which may well be true, but those changes would have, as now, released CO2 and methane which had been trapped, which explains the rise of those levels after the start of the warming. But claiming that these gases do NOT affect temperatures is blatant lying. Laboratory testing done all over the world have shown that they do, indeed, cause the kinds of effects which climatologists assert. This is not just interpretation of historical data but actual laboratory testing!

Hmmm...

Yes, John Christy does oppose those who promote cataclysmic changes from global warming. He does not deny the fact that global warming is occurring, nor that mankind is at least partly responsible. This video is another example of the media spinning the story to suit their own agenda.

And what about these experts?

Syun-Ichi Akasofu - a geophysicist, NOT a climatologist.
Tim Ball - head of another group which won't reveal its funding sources.
Ian Clark - another non-climatologist.
Piers Corbyn - a weatherman! And an astrophysicist. NOT a climatologist.

I hope I have cast enough skepticism on these videos to encourage others to research the rest. I have neither the time nor the inclination to point out the problems in them all.

As for my own stance, while there is still some question in my mind over the significance of global warming, there is little question that it is occurring. As I have stated, laboratory testing has shown that CO2 and methane and water vapor are significant greenhouse gases. Historically, CO2 and methane levels have increased because of higher global temperatures, as they are released from trapped reservoirs in the tundras and sea beds. But we are already starting to see those same reservoirs beginning to release their gases, which will only further increase the CO2 and methane content in the atmosphere. And this time, the CO2 and methane are LEADING the warming, rather than following.

Things are definitely changing. I don't know if they'll get as bad as some of the doom-criers claim. I tend to doubt it myself. But the changes are, indeed, happening.

[steelish]

Syun-Ichi Akasofu - a geophysicist, NOT a climatologist.
Tim Ball - head of another group which won't reveal its funding sources.
Ian Clark - another non-climatologist.
Piers Corbyn - a weatherman! And an astrophysicist. NOT a climatologist.

You're right....an astrophysicist and a geophysicist are both numbskulls and don't know of what they speak. Climatology is a "generated" field of study that is fairly new...but then, geophysicists and astrophysicists are morons and know nothing of the planet.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but be dry and sarcastic in this post. To dismiss long standing fields of study in favor of a new field which supports a viewpoint you're in favor of is to me the same as refusing to see the forest for the trees.

[Thorne]

You're right....an astrophysicist and a geophysicist are both numbskulls and don't know of what they speak. Climatology is a "generated" field of study that is fairly new...but then, geophysicists and astrophysicists are morons and know nothing of the planet.

I never said any of them were morons. Just that their fields of expertise did not necessarily qualify them to be considered experts in climatology. Dentists study medicine but it's unlikely you would want one to do heart surgery on you. Architects design entire buildings, but could you trust one to weld the steel together? Certainly an architect could learn to weld, or a dentist could learn surgery. But then they would have the credentials for those things and would display them, proudly. If these scientists have the proper credentials, why don't they proclaim them? If they don't have those credentials then, while they may be experts in their fields, they aren't necessarily experts in other fields.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but be dry and sarcastic in this post. To dismiss long standing fields of study in favor of a new field which supports a viewpoint you're in favor of is to me the same as refusing to see the forest for the trees.

I've been known to get a little(!) sarcastic on occasion, so no need to apologize. And I'm not dismissing any fields of study. What I'm doing is comparing the claims of one study with the claims of another. In a field like this, especially, where the amount of reproducible laboratory work is minor and the major part of claims comes from field study and interpretation of data, you have to balance those interpretations and come to a decision about which you think might be correct.

My training, and my predisposition, is to trust the chemist with chemical matters, the physicist with physics matters and the climatologist with climate matters. When thousands of climate experts show their data, explain their results, and come to similar conclusions, I have to place their findings ahead of an expert in another field who comes to a different conclusion. Especially if that other expert may be financed by an industry which has a high financial interest in NOT promoting global warming.

Believe me, steelish, I'm not trying to cling to unfounded beliefs. I started out not believing in AGW, or in global warming at all. Learning new things over the past 10-15 years has led me to the conclusion that global warming is, indeed, occurring. Currently I am tending towards the side of AGW, but I'm not yet convinced that mankind has precipitated this change. However, I am convinced that we have, and are, contributing to it. I believe that there is much that can be done to minimize mankind's impact, such as regulating emissions from industries which produce high levels of greenhouse gases, but throwing money willy-nilly into schemes of carbon-sequestration and carbon credits and all that other political mumbo-jumbo is just crap that we have to fight against. It's like the swindlers ca. 1900 who were selling comet masks to protect people when the Earth passed through the tail of Haley's comet. (Yeah, look it up! It happened!)

So, when someone says to me, "Look at all this stuff from scientists who say there is no global warming! How can you still believe?", my response has to be, "Look at all this stuff from real climate experts! How can you not believe!"

[SadisticNature]

You're right....an astrophysicist and a geophysicist are both numbskulls and don't know of what they speak. Climatology is a "generated" field of study that is fairly new...but then, geophysicists and astrophysicists are morons and know nothing of the planet.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but be dry and sarcastic in this post. To dismiss long standing fields of study in favor of a new field which supports a viewpoint you're in favor of is to me the same as refusing to see the forest for the trees.

Climatology is basically a renaming of what used to be Atmospheric Physics, a field that has reputable journals that have been publishing since at least the 1970's.

Geophysics is not Atmospheric physics, and Astrophysics is basically an irrelevant field when considering things that are happening in the atmosphere of the planet we are on.

It's not a matter of smart vs not. No one is saying astrophysicists are stupid. But studying the Earth from the ground downwards or space from above atmosphere to the outer reaches of the universe doesn't qualify one as an expert in discussions on what is going on in the Earth's Atmosphere (namely part of the area located between what those two disciplines study).

[lucy]

Geophysics is not Atmospheric physics, and Astrophysics is basically an irrelevant field when considering things that are happening in the atmosphere of the planet we are on.

Apparently not. Saw a feature recently where an astrophysicist postulated that the long time variations of the earth's temperature correspond pretty neatly with the amount of some sort of radiation that hits the earth while we travel through space. Unfortunately i don't remember the details exactly but it made quite sense and certainly shows that the earth's climate is much more complex and depending on many more factors than we used to think.

He also said that this doesn't explain short time rises and falls of the earths temperature.

[socal_dan]

I doubt that anyone outside of the media (and politicians, of course) are claiming that humanity is the sole cause of global warming. But the evidence does show that we are a significant contributor.

Except that the Earth's own feedback loops are significantly stronger than human borne effects. As an oddity, global warming theorists will say that humans can significantly impact the global climate, while at exactly the same time explaining that Siberia's methane traps releasing could be 50-100 times (or more) worse than any man-made climate warming.

It's absurdly illogical that we're both a major cause, and completely insignificant.

Completely switching gears to address what lucy's saying: The spinning core of the earth creates a magnetic field around our astral body, the magnetosphere, which is influenced by outside radiation forces. Its role in global climatology is deflection of solar wind so that the atmosphere isn't blown away by the sun (compare directly to Mars, which has a non-molten, non-spinning core, no magnetosphere, and negligible atmosphere). It's this deflection of the solar wind (and in turn plasma sheeting of the atmosphere) that's responsible for things like the northern lights.

It's also responsible for upper atmospheric ionization, storm generation, and a number of other atmospheric effects.

[Thorne]

Except that the Earth's own feedback loops are significantly stronger than human borne effects. As an oddity, global warming theorists will say that humans can significantly impact the global climate, while at exactly the same time explaining that Siberia's methane traps releasing could be 50-100 times (or more) worse than any man-made climate warming.

It's absurdly illogical that we're both a major cause, and completely insignificant.

Nothing illogical about it at all. The hypothesis is that global warming was initiated by human-related effects, and when a certain stage is reached the tundra will begin to thaw, releasing vast quantities of methane and CO2. It is also causing global sea temperatures to rise, which can (and is) causing the thawing of methane hydrates from the ocean floor. That would be the tip-over point, leading to possible runaway global warming. At which point, any efforts we could make to reverse the problem would be insignificant.

And while the feedback loops are strong, they also take time. Given the effects of runaway warming, it could take the earth tens of thousands of years, if not millions, to return to something close to the kind of climate we have now, if it ever does. Odds are that human civilization, as we know it, will be long gone by the time that happens.

Make no mistake about it: Earth will survive, one way or another. Life will survive, in one form or another. Whether humanity survives is questionable. We could well go the way of the dinosaurs.

[steelish]

Climatology is basically a renaming of what used to be Atmospheric Physics, a field that has reputable journals that have been publishing since at least the 1970's.

Climatologists created their own journal: Climatic Change and it came out in 1977. But unlike many new journals, this one did not in fact launch itself as the flagship of a new discipline. Its explicit policy was to publish papers that were mainly interdisciplinary, such as explorations of the consequences that global warming might have on ecosystems. Most scientific papers on climate change itself continued to be published in journals dedicated to a specific field, like the meteorologists' Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences or the paleontologists' Quaternary Research.

On the whole, climate science remained "a scientific backwater," as one of its leading figures recalled decades later. "There is little question," he claimed, "that the best science students traditionally went into physics, math and, more recently, computer science." (Richard Lindzen, Testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, May 2, 2001, available as appendix to United States Congress (107:1) (2001)) The study of climate was not a field where you could win a Nobel Prize or a million-dollar patent. You were not likely to win great public fame, nor great respect from scientists in fields where discoveries were more fundamental and more certain. In the mid 1970s, it would have been hard to find a hundred scientists with high ability and consistent dedication to solving the puzzles of climate change. Now as before, many of the most important new findings on climate come from people whose main work lay in other fields, from air pollution to space science, as temporary detours from their main concerns.

[denuseri]

Besides which, the Earths position relative to the sun and the suns immission intensity have far more bearing on temperature than most of the other factors.

Another factor few people like to consider, is that so called "natural events" both geological, and stellar, have had on different occassions much more rapid onsets and durational effects than climatoligists or politicans supporting the current "human only cuase agenda" wish to make known for public consumption just becuase it puts holes in the political agenda behind the current push.

As a side note: the rising co2 levels still havent been proven, nor does all the evidence point towrds, it being a direct cuase of climate change when it could in fact be an effect, the proccess relationship between them isnt as of yet understood well enough to say with certianty that one drives the other.

Additionally geologic records alone show countless times where the earth quite suddenly cooled down and or warmed up (well within a short fifty to 100 year period) and to greater extents than it is currently doing (and or projected to do) in both duration and temperature shift...long, long before humanity's presence on the planet could possibely cuase any signifigant changes.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="Pink"]Besides which, the Earths position relative to the sun and the suns immission intensity have far more bearing on temperature than most of the other factors.

True, but these emissions are will known and factored into the calculations made by climatologists.

Another factor few people like to consider, is that so called "natural events" both geological, and stellar, have had on different occassions much more rapid onsets and durational effects than climatoligists or politicans supporting the current "human only cuase agenda" wish to make known for public consumption just becuase it puts holes in the political agenda behind the current push.

Again, these natural causes are pretty well understood and accounted for. The levels of volcanic activity, for example are constantly measured, along with the amount of ash and dust being put out by volcanoes, and it has been found that, in general, these events are relatively constant, averaging out over the years. There have been some blips, of course. The eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815, combined with unusually low solar activity, caused tremendous problems around the world, during what has been called 'The Year Without a Summer'. But still, these events are understood and factored into calculations.

As a side note: the rising co2 levels still havent been proven, nor does all the evidence point towrds, it being a direct cuase of climate change when it could in fact be an effect, the proccess relationship between them isnt as of yet understood well enough to say with certianty that one drives the other.

This is just plain wrong. CO2 levels are well above pre-industrial levels. While there can be some variations depending on where measurements are taken, the overall average of CO2 concentration has been steadily climbing. And laboratory testing has shown that increasing CO2 levels will cause increased atmospheric temperatures due to the absorption of infrared radiation. What it amounts to is that, by combining the natural sources of CO2 emission with the burning of fossil fuels by civilization and the deforestation of large tracts of land, there is more CO2 being added to the atmosphere each year than the natural processes can remove.

Additionally geologic records alone show countless times where the earth quite suddenly cooled down and or warmed up (well within a short fifty to 100 year period) and to greater extents than it is currently doing (and or projected to do) in both duration and temperature shift...long, long before humanity's presence on the planet could possibely cuase any signifigant changes.

And the problem with this is that humanity may not be able to survive such a shift. Yes, it's possible the globe could be plunged into a deep freeze, or things beyond our control could raise the temperature to unbearable levels in a relatively short time. Those dangers will always be there, and there's damned little we can do about them. But that's not the problem we're facing now, is it?

Even if we could prove that the current warming cycle was not started by mankind, there's more than enough evidence to show that our own contributions are making things worse. The best way to minimize our impact is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels significantly. This would, however, have a very strong negative impact on those industries which depend upon our consumption of those fuels, as well as those politicians who depend upon those same industries for their political existence. And this is the primary reason that there is so much resistance to the very idea of global warming.

PS: The sunspot cycle, which has been unusually silent for the past two years, has recently restarted. In March of this year the first major sunspot activity in more than two years were detected. If this means a startup of the solar cycle, it will mean gradually rising temperatures here on Earth. It will be interesting to see the effects this will have on denialists.

[denuseri]

True, but these emissions are will known and factored into the calculations made by climatologists.

You mean they are "ignored" ussually becuase they don't match with what most climatoligists want to see.

Again, these natural causes are pretty well understood and accounted for.

The levels of volcanic activity, for example are constantly measured, along with the amount of ash and dust being put out by volcanoes, and it has been found that, in general, these events are relatively constant, averaging out over the years. There have been some blips, of course. The eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815, combined with unusually low solar activity, caused tremendous problems around the world, during what has been called 'The Year Without a Summer'. But still, these events are understood and factored into calculations.

There is nothing constant about the stellar event that took place over north america a few thousand years ago that brought the mass extinction of countless species (including clovis man) from not only the initial impact but from the subsequent rapid world wide climate change (which also killed more than its fair share of mammoths found in siberia whose stomachs still contained warm weather food yet they died in cold weather conditions). It has happened countless times and didnt take thousands or even hundreds of years to occur. The Deccan-taps eruptions are another prime example from an earlier period.

As for their being factored into calculations I just looked at a whole series of calculations where it wasnt just the other day at school and listened to a 3 hour lecture on how the climatoligists are ignoreing the data that doesnt support their claims.


This is just plain wrong. CO2 levels are well above pre-industrial levels. While there can be some variations depending on where measurements are taken, the overall average of CO2 concentration has been steadily climbing. And laboratory testing has shown that increasing CO2 levels will cause increased atmospheric temperatures due to the absorption of infrared radiation. What it amounts to is that, by combining the natural sources of CO2 emission with the burning of fossil fuels by civilization and the deforestation of large tracts of land, there is more CO2 being added to the atmosphere each year than the natural processes can remove.

Actually co2 was higher by allmost a factor of 2 or more than todays levels on several different occassions according to the geologic record long before humans ran around and figured out how to make fire rubbing sticks together.

Labrotory testing has also shown that when you raise the temperature, that co2 levels will increase along with it on their own. Go riddle me that one Sir.

And the problem with this is that humanity may not be able to survive such a shift. Yes, it's possible the globe could be plunged into a deep freeze, or things beyond our control could raise the temperature to unbearable levels in a relatively short time. Those dangers will always be there, and there's damned little we can do about them. But that's not the problem we're facing now, is it?

Why yes it most certiantly is one of the dangers we need to prepare for and could face at any moment.

Additonally...just in case...though mainly for other reasons perveiously stated numerous times other than the "its our fault thinking"...I believe we should be reducing carbon emissions anyway and treating the enviroment a heck of a lot better. I also believe our #1 way to do this is via further space exploration and technological achievement in combination with a reduction of industries designed around the explotation of "limited" "perishable" rescources.

Even if we could prove that the current warming cycle was not started by mankind, there's more than enough evidence to show that our own contributions are making things worse. The best way to minimize our impact is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels significantly. This would, however, have a very strong negative impact on those industries which depend upon our consumption of those fuels, as well as those politicians who depend upon those same industries for their political existence. And this is the primary reason that there is so much resistance to the very idea of global warming.

I agree on that preception good Sir in its entirety.

PS: The sunspot cycle, which has been unusually silent for the past two years, has recently restarted. In March of this year the first major sunspot activity in more than two years were detected. If this means a startup of the solar cycle, it will mean gradually rising temperatures here on Earth. It will be interesting to see the effects this will have on denialists.

I am also worried in addition to what you have mentioned and a very likely possibility of stellar impact; about the possibility of slight obital shift or a change again in the earths angle of declination as it rotates (it went from 14 degrees once to what it is now a while back which cuased massive changes)which hopefully wont happen due to the upcomming switch in polarities expected to happen between our magnetic poles in the near future which may have allready started btw.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="pink"]You mean they are "ignored" ussually becuase they don't match with what most climatoligists want to see.

How can they be ignored? Ignoring natural sources of CO2 would require climatologists to claim that ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. they're not. From what I've found, they are claiming that only 3% of the annual addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is caused by mankind (not including respiration.) The problem is that not all of this man-made CO2 can be handled by the natural cycles, so the CO2 levels are gradually increasing.

There is nothing constant about the stellar event that took place over north america a few thousand years ago that brought the mass extinction of countless species (including clovis man) from not only the initial impact but from the subsequent rapid world wide climate change (which also killed more than its fair share of mammoths found in siberia whose stomachs still contained warm weather food yet they died in cold weather conditions). It has happened countless times and didnt take thousands or even hundreds of years to occur. The Deccan-taps eruptions are another prime example from an earlier period.

The astronomical event you're referring to is a relatively recent hypothesis, which is still being studied. There are a couple of different hypotheses regarding the cause of the climate change at that time. But they all reference cataclysmic events, not gradual climate change. There is certainly little argument about the possibility of relatively rapid climate change caused by such events. When they calculate the average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, naturally these events are not included, as they are aberrations which do not figure into the kinds of data they are concerned about. For example, if you want to determine the amount of smoke dispersed into the air by naturally occurring forest fires, you don't include the data from those fires started by people. They are not, by definition, natural. They are aberrations, at least as far as your study is concerned.

Actually co2 was higher by allmost a factor of 2 or more than todays levels on several different occassions according to the geologic record long before humans ran around and figured out how to make fire rubbing sticks together.

Yes it has, but that has nothing to do with what's occurring now. The controversy now is not how much CO2 is present, but where it's coming from, and how much it's affecting our climate. The CO2 concentrations 100 million years ago are not relevant to today's climate. The effects of those concentrations, on the other hand, may be. But the entire atmosphere was different back then, and moderating influences from oceanic currents which we have today were much different.

Labrotory testing has also shown that when you raise the temperature, that co2 levels will increase along with it on their own. Go riddle me that one Sir.

Exactly, but that's not the testing I was talking about. I was referring to testing which shows that CO2, methane and even water vapor are strong greenhouse gases which can affect the temperature of the atmosphere. As far as I know, though, CO2 is NOT created in the atmosphere as the temperatures increase. But higher temperatures do cause CO2, methane and water vapor to be freed from ground sources, such as the tundra and methane hydrate deposits. This is one of the things that worries many scientists. Man-made CO2 causes a slight rise in average global temperatures; higher temperatures cause thawing of permafrost in the CO2-rich tundras of Canada and Siberia (primarily), causing release of this CO2 into the atmosphere, causing further warming. Warming also causes a rise in sea temperatures, which causes thawing of methane-hydrate deposits on the ocean floor, causing release of methane into the atmosphere, causing even more temperature rises. It's a vicious cycle. The biggest controversy, however, is not over whether it will happen, but in how large an effect it will have. It's already known to be happening, a fact confirmed by direct observation and measurement.

I am also worried in addition to what you have mentioned and a very likely possibility of stellar impact;

I assume you mean an asteroid or comet impact. (Stellar refers to stars: just a minor nit-pick) Yes, these are possible, but not worth worrying about unless you're in the government or the space program. If we are going to be impacted by something about the size of the object which wiped out the dinosaurs, or even the one which may have wiped out the mammoths, there's nothing we can do to prevent it. About all we can do is, "Watch the skies! Keep watching the skies!" ('The Thing from Another World', 1951)

about the possibility of slight obital shift

To my knowledge, this could only be caused by the intrusion of something quite large into our immediate neighborhood, or by a very large impact. In either case, there's not a damned thing we can do about it, so no sense worrying about it. The possibilities are even more remote than for an asteroid impact.

or a change again in the earths angle of declination as it rotates (it went from 14 degrees once to what it is now a while back which cuased massive changes)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I assume you mean the axial tilt, which is what causes our seasons. I've seen nothing about it being 14º at any time, though. It averages from about 22º to about 24º. It's currently getting smaller and should reach minimum in about 9000 years or so. Not something we need to worry about.

which hopefully wont happen due to the upcomming switch in polarities expected to happen between our magnetic poles in the near future which may have allready started btw.

The Earth's magnetic field is in a constant state of flux. The north magnetic pole has been migrating northward since 1931 (when measurements began), and the speed of this migration has recently increased. But the possibility of a magnetic reversal, which has occurred in the past, is certainly there. From what I've read, the last reversal was over 700,000 years ago, and they've averaged out at about once every 300,000 years, so we may be overdue for one. But no one really knows. There's certainly no indication that it will happen in the near future, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen tomorrow. But there doesn't seem to be any indication that such a shift would be catastrophic as far as climate or life is concerned. There will be problems in navigation for anyone still using magnetic compasses, and probably some other localized effects. The only real problem would be if, for some reason, the magnetic field simply switched off, leaving the planet exposed to the solar wind. But there's no evidence for that happening. And there's certainly no evidence for it happening in the near future. And again, it's something over which we have absolutely no control, so worrying about it is a waste of time.

[denuseri]

Just becuase you have no control over somthing happening doesnt mean you cant be prepare for it.

[Thorne]

Just becuase you have no control over somthing happening doesnt mean you cant be prepare for it.

Quite true. But preparing and worrying are not the same thing. And building a boat on top of a mountain every time it gets cloudy is just worrying.

[denuseri]

And as one can see, in some people's oppinions, (not mine obviously) so too is it with Global Warming and Climate Change.

[Thorne]

For those wanting to cling to the denial, the verdict is in!

Global warming is real, and one way or another we're going to have to deal with it.

Mint julep, anyone?

[denuseri]

And yet according to the blogs sited resources:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/...ements/oxburgh

UEA welcomes the Report by the Lord Oxburgh’s Independent Panel, both in respect of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) being cleared of any scientific impropriety and dishonesty, and the suggestions made for improvement in some other areas.

The Oxburgh findings are the result of the latest scrutiny of CRU’s research. The first was the original peer review which led to publication in some of the world’s leading international science journals; the second was the Inquiry by the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. Taken together, these must represent one of the most searching examinations of any body of scientific research. The veracity of CRU’s research remains intact after this examination.

It is gratifying to us that the Oxburgh Report points out that CRU has done a public service of great value by carrying out meticulous work on temperature records when it was unfashionable and attracted little scientific interest, and that the Unit has been amongst the leaders in international efforts to determine the overall uncertainty in the derived temperature records. Similarly, the Report emphasises that all of CRU’s published research on the global land-based instrumental temperature record included detailed descriptions of uncertainties and appropriate caveats. We also welcome the confirmation that, although some have accused CRU of trying to mislead, the Unit’s published research emphasises the late 20th Century discrepancy between tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature and instrumental observations.

The Report points out where things might have been done better. One is to engage more with professional statisticians in the analysis of data. Another, related, point is that more efficacious statistical techniques might have been employed in some instances (although it was pointed out that different methods may not have produced different results). Specialists in many areas of research acquire and develop the statistical skills pertinent to their own particular data analysis requirements. However, we do see the sense in engaging more fully with the wider statistics community to ensure that the most effective and up-to-date statistical techniques are adopted and will now consider further how best to achieve this.

Another area for suggested improvement is in the archiving of data and algorithms, and in recording exactly what was done. Although no-one predicted the import of this pioneering research when it started in the mid-1980’s, it is now clear that more effort needs to be put into this activity. CRU, and other parts of the climate science community, are already making improvements in these regards, and the University will continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained.

The Independent Climate Change E-mail Review investigation is underway, and therefore some important issues are still under active consideration. This document is our immediate written response to the Oxburgh Report. In the coming weeks we shall be considering precisely how we act upon the detailed findings of the Oxburgh Report, together with the findings of the parliamentary select committee and, in due course, the Independent Muir Russell review report.

[steelish]

For those wanting to cling to the denial, the verdict is in!

Global warming is real, and one way or another we're going to have to deal with it.

Mint julep, anyone?

a panel of POLITICIANS? No thanks.

[Thorne]

And yet according to the blogs sited resources:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/...ements/oxburgh

The Independent Climate Change E-mail Review investigation is underway, and therefore some important issues are still under active consideration. [/I]

So they're examining the emails. So what? The emails have nothing to do with the data. Only with their internal communications. If you intend to hang the science of global warming on some emails you're really stretching things.

[Thorne]

a panel of POLITICIANS? No thanks.

No, the first investigation was done by politicians. This second investigation was done by scientists. Both groups found that there was no wrongdoing by the CRU and that their data was sound. What more do you need? Should we have the oil companies do their own investigation? How about a panel of religious leaders? And let's not forget the UFO 'experts'!

No, as far as I can see the only wrongdoing here was the person who hacked the email accounts and distributed selected excerpts from private communications.

[leo9]

No, the first investigation was done by politicians. This second investigation was done by scientists.

But the scientist are the conspirators, remember? In the pay of the politicians, who are all crypto-communists, even the Pentagon.

Except the deniers, who can be trusted because they're obviously not in the conspiracy.

It's so easy when you don't need to bother with facts.

[steelish]

It's a safe bet that most Americans' first exposure to the concept of carbon trading or cap-and-trade legislation came during the most recent presidential campaign when both candidates advocated the need to make protecting the environment a government mandate instead of the moral obligation it's always been. In the past few months President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that a comprehensive energy/environmental law, including cap-and-trade, is an absolute priority of his administration.

Cap-and-Trade

Simply put, the idea behind the cap-and-trade plan is this: The federal government would set limits or cap the amount of pollutant a business could create. If the business chose to emit levels exceeding the cap they would have to find a business not using its full allotment and purchase the surplus from them. Needless-to-say, for the concept to work there would need to be a highly centralized infrastructure to facilitate the transactions, matching buyers to sellers.

The CCX: A Dream Come True?

For people like Richard Sandor and former Vice-President Al Gore the focus on "green politics" represented the culmination of years of planning and a giant step towards a massive payday.

With a big helping hand from then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, Sandor's brainchild, The Chicago Climate Exchange, opened for business in 2003 billing itself as "North America's only cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases..." In other words, the facilitator for a scheme not quite hatched. Sandor, a long-time economist turned environmentalist shared his vision during a 1990 interview with the Wall Street Journal, saying, "Air and water are no longer the free goods that economics once assumed. They must be redefined as property rights so that they can be efficiently allocated." The statement didn't get a lot of attention back then but today seems prophetic. Sandor claims his idea of efficient allocation, also known as carbon trading, will develop into a $10 trillion industry.

Assembling the Team

During 2000 and 2001, the Joyce Foundation, a progressive trust with assets near $1 billion, known for funding groups like Center for American Progress and Tides Foundation, provided grants to CCX totaling $1.1 million. State Senator Obama served on the foundation's board of directors during that time and was instrumental in awarding the grants.

Shortly after the first grant was approved, the president of The Joyce Foundation, Paula DiPerna, left to join the executive team of CCX. Other notables with familiar names soon followed.

• Former Vice-President Al Gore became part-owner of CCX when his company, Generation Investment Management, made a sizeable investment. Gore brought with him his senior partner at GIM, David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, along with a company chalk full of former Goldman Sachs' executives

• Goldman Sachs itself soon joined the team buying a ten percent interest in CCX

• Maurice Strong, once linked to Tongsun Park, the central figure in the United Nation's oil-for-food scandal in 2005 and one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol, joined the CCX board of directors

• Carlton Bartels was one of the first, and perhaps most important, additions to the CCX roster. As CEO of a company called CO2e, Bartels developed and delivered the actual guts of the exchange — a system for facilitating and managing the actual carbon trades

Strange Bedfellows

Just three weeks after filing for a patent for his carbon trade system, Bartels was killed during the attacks of 9/11. Bartels' death opened the door for a new partner to join CCX, easily the oddest fit of them all: Fannie Mae. In a move still unexplained, the quasi-governmental mortgage agency, led by CEO Franklin Raines, purchased the rights to the system from Bartel's widow. A patent on the invention was granted to Raines and Fannie Mae on November 7, 2006, ironically, the day after the Democrats regained control of Congress. According to Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner, the patent covers both the "cap" and "trade" parts of Obama's top domestic energy initiative and gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over the automated trading system used by Sandor's CCX.

When asked about the patent recently Fannie Mae communications director Amy Bonitatibus told the Washington Examiner, "Fannie Mae earns no money on this patent. We can't conjecture as to the cap-and-trade legislation." A source close to Fannie Mae, however, says a plan is in place to funnel future earnings from the patent to a non-profit housing organization called Enterprise Community Partners. Ironically, Raines, who left Fannie Mae in 2004 amidst allegations that he inflated earnings reports in order to collect higher bonuses ($52 million in bonuses over 5-years; $90 million in total compensation), serves on the board of trustees at Enterprise. In a continuation of theme, Goldman Sachs also has a representative on the board in the person of Alicia Glen.

Off to See the Wizard

In December 2009 The Joyce Foundation awarded Raines and Enterprise a $200,000 grant to launch Emerald Cities Collaborative. According to its website, "The Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC) is a start-up, national coalition of diverse groups that includes unions, labor groups, community organizations, social justice advocates, development intermediaries, research and technical assistance providers, socially responsible businesses, and elected officials."

Emerald Cities' goal is "the greening of our nation's central cities and the creation of a "new vital economic sector." The collaborative is headed up by Joel Rogers, widely recognized as the "man behind the curtain" of today's progressive political movement. Rogers founded the powerful Apollo Alliance, the group recognized as having shaped much of the Obama administration's stimulus bill. Former White House green jobs "czar," Van Jones, described Rogers influence this way: "The best thinking that he represents… is now represented in the White House."

Also represented on the Emerald Cities board of directors, Gerald Hudson, executive director of SEIU (also on the Apollo Alliance advisory board); Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, CEO of Green For All (created by Van Jones), and Doris Koo, CEO of Enterprise Community Partners, along with a collection of other union and community activist regulars.

The Bottom Line

The "environmental movement," once the bastion of peace loving hippies and Earth mothers, is potentially the booming business of the 21st century. Billions of dollars currently change hands each year in the name of the environment and, by all accounts, the surface is only scratched.

To date the missing piece of the puzzle has been a government mandate, something cap-and-trade legislation will remedy. Those already in the game stand to reap a fortune on the backs of average Americans who will see their energy bills "necessarily skyrocket," as President Obama explained, as businesses pass along the new cost of doing what they do in a "green America."

It's interesting to note that without the specter of a government mandate, the Chicago Climate Exchange would hold no value. Likewise Fannie Mae's patented trading system and Emerald Cities' prospects for "a new vital economic sector" would be nothing more than fool's gold.

Equally troubling is the blatant acknowledgement by those involved in this high stakes green rush that power and profit are the only real benefits to be had. The words of Joel Rogers: "I hope you all realized that you could eliminate every power plant in America today and you can stop every car in America. Take out the entire power generation sector and you still would not be anywhere near 80 percent below 1990 levels. You would be closer to around 60 percent... it would be around 68 percent and this is with bringing the economy to a complete halt… basically."

Crime Inc. – what do they know and when did they know it… and how much will it cost the American people?

Oh, and FYI - Al Gore, who denies the allegations that he is a "carbon billionaire" recently bought 9 million dollar California oceanfront property despite his claims that the "oceans will rise significantly". But no. There's no conspiracy.