An Inconvenient Truth

This subject wouldn't have dragged me out, but I see some massive misreps of what data says, as well as massive misreps of how science works.Let me start by saying that I not only studied geology, I studied/worked in paleoclimatology as a specific subfield for a time. While this was years ago, and data has changed since that time, I can tell certain people here claiming that we've had evidence for 40 years that they are talking way beyond what they know.At the time I did have the most up to date data and nothing was conclusive, much less suggestive. My professor and many others did not see data supportive of a conclusion that an upswing in temp was beyond natural bounds, much less caused directly by human sources, or that any such effects would not be something that could be mitigated by natural atmospheric mechanisms.Knowledge about our atmosphere, its mechanisms, and its extremely long history is developing as we speak. It is not perfect and it certainly was not so even ten years ago. Discussions of "unimpeachable" evidence, and suggestions that GW is something that could have been recognized decades ago as something beyond a mere theoretical possibility, is hyperbolic rhetoric. In fact it stands against commentary by the very scientific organizations which are pushing GW as an issue to deal with today. I think that there is sufficient evidence to maintain that use of hydrocarbons (though it doesn't just have to be for fuel) effects atmospheric temperatures. But this does not reduce the possibility of other causes working synchronistically with that factor, both natural and manmade. Massive deforestation and urbanization of landscape (both of which increase local temps and effect CO2 levels at the same time) cannot be helping things any.The graphs which have been shown do NOT prove anything about CO2 and its connection to temperatures. It is only suggestive. I'm going to leave aside the problems of CO2 and temp measurements on a global scale over time, and take them as is. Uncharted on those are factors we do exist and ARE having an effect, such as the general upward trend of temps since the last ice age and solar radiance. Thus what you see is a connection, but not causation. And even if influence is agreed upon (and I would agree there is a connection) the full amount is not known and what will happen without other coincidal factors.There is also no reason to believe that mechanisms will not "kick in" to adjust temperatures as they have in the past. None of your graphs show world temps beyond the 1800s, and I see in this thread there have been claims that we are reaching temps never seen before, both of which are inaccurate when actually trying to understand what is going on in the world. I'm not good with inserting images so bear with me... Here is a plot of CO2 and temp (anomoly) for the last 750K years. As can be seen we have had CO2 and temp levels fluctuating above what we see today, without man's interference. And the earth has rebounded only to rebound again. Is there reason to believe human factors can break the back of natural mechanisms of energy/temp redistribution entirely? Here is a page on temp records.Obviously we can't use direct readings and must rely on other indicators. In any case, we find evidence that temperatures like we have today may very well have been around, and most likely have for long periods of time... again and again.I'm not trying to argue that we shouldn't be mindful of human effects on the environment. I am simply trying to argue we must also be mindful of ideological or irrational effects on good science and so problem solving ability. If there is a problem with CO2, it is not going to be solved by "sky is burning" hyperbole. I agree with this assessment totally, and it IS what is being missed by those in industry and politicians supporting a singular view of how industry must operate. We can't count on natural cycles of the earth to conveniently work in conjunction with what we do, we must work with the natural cycles of the earth. Or at least if we want to live comfortably we must keep that in mind.I'd like to end by pointing out how cold the earth has been according to those temp records. If we saw temperatures beginning to plunge and a connection to a manmade influence, should we draw the same conclusions as we are now with an increase in temp? Should we worry about what cold will do to our quality of life?The facts are that temps fluctuate on the earth. There is no evidence to indicate that CO2 or other modern manmade influences can push us past what we have seen at any other time in earth's history... or at least not for the forseeable future. That is to say, while we may be in for problems related to warm climates, and we can thank our influence in part for what we face, we are not looking at an apocalypse.I'd urge restraint and progressive measurse to try and reduce human impact on the environment, but there is no way that that will "save" us from encountering the same problems mentioned above if/when the earth's environment throws us into one extreme end of the temp cycle or the other.Edited by holmes, : turning phrasesEdited by holmes, : general upkeep

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Diamond mine, not gold, and I was being sarcastic about Robertson.

That's a pretty serious misrepresentation of the data of this graph. I'm going to assume that it was unintentional, although the caption of the graph should have made your error abundantly clear:

quote:

---

This figure shows apparent correlations between historical CO2 and temperature records based on Antarctic ice cores, providing data for the last 750,000 years. The data has been normalised so as to be presented on a common scale. Current CO2 concentrations (380 ppmv) would be 5.48 (3 s.f.) on this scale.

---

The higest visible quantity on the graph itself is only 2.25 s.f. from mean.It is a considerable error on your part to suggest that the ice core evidence shows higher CO2 concentrations in the past than today. That is incorrect in the extreme, as you can see on this graph of the same data:As you can see, the data you refer to shows the exact opposite of your contention - CO2 levels are almost a full 100 ppm higher now than their highest point in the past, at least according to the ice core data. I'm not sure how you are able to make such a claim in one paragraph, and then in the next present a graph which shows world temperature data for the past 750,000 years. Again, the data demonstrates the exact opposite:The rising temperatures are in the face of a long-term cooling trend. The solar variance you refer to is known to be responsible for less than 30% of the total warming effect, and it's more than 90% likely that solar output will decrease within the next 50 years. There is no evidence that any "mechanism" has ever operated in the past that can ameliorate the effects of CO2 levels being 5.5 s.f. above their historical mean. What you urge is absolutely nothing more than "let's wait around for angels to save us." You urge restraint? I urge you to learn to read a graph. The liberties you have taken with the data (to speak charitably) in your post are a staggering departure from the general level of intellectual output that used to characterize your posts.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

It was entirely unintentional and the product of trying to address two different issues in the same sentence, while writing and editing very quickly. My main point was to state that temps have fluctuated above what we see today. Unfortunately I merged that with a comment about CO2 fluctuations in general, which while not reaching levels we see today have had periods of great increase.The sentence should have read something like: "As can be seen we have had CO2 and temp levels fluctuating greatly without man's interference, and the latter to levels above what we see today."I find it interesting that you have concentrated on that error, rather than the more important points regarding its connection to world temps, and the history of world temps in general. The graph you just supplied only helps my position. You can see that both have fluctuated relatively in tandem but not necessarily directly, temps have reached above and beyond the temps we see today, and currently they are not rising in some direct way with CO2 levels. If that last point were true the temp spike should be as large as the CO2 spike.I agree, and said that I agreed, with the concept that CO2 levels are a factor in temperature increases we are seeing. I also agree with that it is possible we have reached CO2 levels higher than in the past, given many factors relating to modern human activity. My only caveat is that we can't be totally certain of such comparison given limits of technology related to estimating CO2 levels. But I am willing to accept that possibility and agree current estimates place modern levels above previous ones. I was specifically responding to the data charts RAZD showed within his post, and then linked to and discussed a more complete chart. Did you think by "your" I meant everyone else on the planet or something? This response typifies your lack of knowledge. In the face of? How do you, or they know what the trend is SUPPOSED to be? Given the natural fluctuations "longterm" continuity of a direction does not indicate what it must continue doing.As it is, the label of longterm seems a bit arbitrary to make. As you can see in this graph, evidence appears to show that we have been on an upward trend for the last 2-600 years. The authors you are citing have used a 2000 year scale which makes it appear that the temps have been relatively stable but generally cooling except toward the very end. That is called playing with a graph to make something look real to the eye, which is not totally accurate in the data. The recent "longterm trend", stretching back past mass human effects, is one of warming. If we take the data back further than 2000 years then we also see ourselves part of a different longterm trend (a back and forth at the upper portion of a rise from the last major ice age).As far as your claims about solar variance, you claim what is KNOWN about its contribution. While I am astounded you would make such a strong claim regarding anything in science, lets roll with it. So it is only 30%, that makes it a pretty strong factor. I'm not sure why 1/3 does not seem large to you. You say that it will likely start falling in the next 50 years, what does that suggest about temps? ??? We can see that CO2 levels and temps have fluctuated over earth's history. Thus there are natural mechanisms which control such things. They are not angels, unless you are claiming angels did so in the past.You have not shown any reason to believe that CO2 can drive temps indefinitely, that is to say that they will not face reductions or neutralizations based on natural mechanisms of energy distribution which have acted in the past. Your only argument has been to say that we haven't seen such levels of CO2 before and therefore any effects must be catastrophic and beyond balance. Again I pose the question to you: Is there reason to believe... and I would like evidence... that human factors can break the back of natural mechanisms of energy/temp redistribution?Given the extremely cold periods which have occured, why could whatever environmental factors that went into them, NOT take precedence over currently accumulating CO2 levels? That they have roughly paralleled each other in the past does not mean they are wholly dependent such that other natural forces might not be greater. Yes, I can read a graph. Based on your claims, you cannot.In any case, yes I urge restraint and progressive measures to reduce human impact. Just because we do not have the data to draw specific conclusions you feel might be warranted, does not mean there is no benefit to avoiding that possibility or simply reduce our effects for other practical reasons.I think it is clear that CO2, and other human factors (I notice you only focused on my mentioning of natural factors), are contributing to a rise in global temps. This has varied effects. I do not see any being as catastrophic as many portray, but there will certainly be inconveniences as change usually does mean inconvenience as people have to adjust. The more rapid the change, the greater the inconvenience.Since we are in a period where other cycles are creating an upswing, why exaggerate that swing? I just don't need hyperbole and misrepresentations of our knowledge to make that same point.Oh yes, and I should add something else. If true, what does this tell you we should do? What science do we have showing what to do? Given that we are beyond CO2 levels seen before, how can you argue stopping such production will help unless you are appealing to those exact same angels of mercy I was.And more importantly what active policies will result in the reductions we may want to see happen? Gore has pushed agendas that I see little merit in. Its sort of like agreeing with Bush that terrorist organizations do pose some sort of threat, but not as dire as he makes out, and even if true does not suggest any of his remedies. While a "nice" gesture, and something I would not have walked away from as Bush did, Kyoto was not a solution or really the start of one.I have not seen Gore's latest movie, but if it mirrors his past efforts in science and societal policy making, I am not confident it will be more than boosting policy based on scare tactics. I'm sure his intentions are great, but without reason and evidence to back real policy, it does not help anyone. I guess this is to say doing "anything" just to say we are doing something is not always the best option.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

If you melt the ice caps and raise the ocean levels, they will leave. And just to make sure, the Insurance Institute of America will raise insurances rates in Florida and the Gulf Coast to such obscene levels, it will revert to a rich man's only habitat and then to a HUGE underwater park. Disney UnderWater World.(:raig

Just wondering if you have any intentions or plans to maybe see the movie?I think that there were only two theaters in my whole state that showed the movie, and I was lucky enough to live near one. I thought it was very good.Most of the criticism I have read about this movie came from political adversaries of Gore, and were more critical about him personally than anything that as actually in the movie. One critic claiming that the whole thing was a setup for Gore to try and run for president again, but then said that Gore should run for "Grand Druid" instead. Mildly witty I suppose, but it doesn't say much about the movie or global warming.So unless you have some unwavering aversion to Gore, I would suggest you give it a view.~clpMINI

---

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.

I don't see how that sentence is any better supported. The graph you presented omits the last century or so of data (which is why the CO2 levels weren't on it). Could you present the temperature data that leads you to make this statement? Because when I look at the temperature record for the last 600,000 years:I don't see anything approaching the consistent elevated temperatures we see today. I see impressive, short term temperature spikes - but the trend beginning over at our side of the chart is nothing like what the rest of the ice core data shows.What am I missing? I didn't address it because you're basically hopeless. If you can look at the above graph, and assert that the connection between CO2 and climate warming is only "suggestive", especially in the light of laboratory studies that prove the effecacy of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, then there's no convincing you. You've erected a bulwark of invincible ignorance.Keep in mind what you're asking me to believe, in the face of proven abnormal CO2 levels and the proven effecacy of C02 as a warming agent in simulated trials:1) That an unknown factor is suppressing the warming effect of elevated CO2 levels, and;
2) an unknown factor, unrelated to the first factor, is actually responsible for the warming, but
3) a completely unknown factor will probably kick in at the last minute and save New York City.That's three completely unknown factors, at least. Can you see why I might have difficulty taking your argument seriously? I'm hardly under an obligation to bend over backwards prove that something that has never been observed to occur in the past won't occur in the future. We know what the cause is; human industrialization. We know what the result is - abnormal warming. We're already seeing the effects - the warming is significantly different, much more prolonged, than the warming cycles experienced in the past. Let me ask you again, since you didn't answer the first time. What process have we observed in the past that ameliorated the effects of 400 ppm of CO2? Could you point out what catastrophic claims are being made? Rising sea levels and the flooding of cities doesn't seem to be unreasonably catastrophic, especially considering that especially notable flooded city from last summer, and the observation that sea levels have already begun to rise above historical levels. At any rate, to suggest that low-lying coastal cities are going to slowly flood hardly seems unreasonable or carastrophic. I'm not familiar with any authority who has made claims of "burning skies" or whatever nonsense you mentioned last time. I'm not familiar with anybody serious who asserts that the human race is doomed as a result. That's certainly an unreasonable claim.But you know what I find equally unreasonable? Your claim that floods won't happen. Your claim that famines and drought won't occur. Your claim that absolutely nothing we might wish to avoid is going to occur as a result of this climate change, and we should all just relax with a margharita and wait for "enough data" to come in, with the obvious implication that there will never be enough data. Honestly, Holmes, I dispair of ever getting to the point where we discuss policy. It's like pulling teeth to get people like you to admit that there's even a problem!How about we concentrate on one thing at a time? I wouldn't discuss with a creationist the proper way to build a phylogenetic tree; covering policy with someone who doesn't even grant the existence of the problem in question would be equally fruitless. Who gives a fuck about Kyoto? Did you see any of us bring it up? That's like the last refrain of global warming deniers. "Well, it's not like Kyoto would have worked." Who the fuck cares about Kyoto when we can't even get everybody on the same page about the existence of the problem in the first place? How about you go see it before you review it? Just a thought. I'm surprised that you haven't yet, in fact. No time for movies, or what? I assure you it isn't boring, not in the least.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

We also need to consider other aspects of man's alterations on nature and their effect on global warming and the concentration of greenhouse gases.One of the jokes about global warming was that there was more methane produced by cows than by humans ... but when you consider that the reason there are such large herds of cows is for human food it puts it in a different light.If you look at the ice core data you see a spike at 10,000 years ago, and then a plateau in the temperatures.10,000 years ago is when agriculture started, with attendant clearing of forest and shrub land (usually by burning) to raise crops. This inceases the heating of the planet by reducing the airconditioning effect of forest cover. This also produces CO₂.The effect on man on the planet extends further into the past than just the industrial period.I also see a spike in the red line (CO₂) at the zero time (

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I also know that in '70 and '71 I was involved with a student group of interdisciplinary {engineer\science\other} types discussing global warming, the use of alternate fuels (wind, solar, fuel cell), to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions.This work was based on the knowledge that (a) man is producing greenhouse gases and (b) greenhouse gases correlate with higher temperatures. What was not known was the effects of other mechanisms (cows to volcanoes) and the ability of the planet to absorb high concentrations. This does not mean that we did not know that what we were doing would have some effect on the global temperatures, it was more a question of how much and how soon. Good. Add that to {we know temperatures are rising} and it would indicate a need for action rather than restraint whether the rise is entirely due to our action or we have only caused part of it. As noted in post to crash, this has possibly been a more major impact of man over the last 10,000 years than the industrial use of hydrocarbons. Now, however we have BOTH such impactive activity being increased (if not accelerated) while people still deny that temperatures are in fact rising. Then we should not advocate restrain in dealing with the impacts we are having on those temperatures that we may just find "inconvenient" (at best). and there is no evidence that we can't push it faster and higher than ever before either. Yes, that may be the way nature ultimately restores balance: drastic changes to weather patterns, loss of the deep sea conveyor and the poles plunge into an ice age while the tropics bake.There have been chaotic changes in the past, and we don't know what kicks them into occurring, but hey, let's push the envelope anyway eh?The evidence is also that venus had a much more temperate environment at the early stages of life in the solar system: what is the threshold at which it converted to a hostile environment? Do we really want to experiment with the only planet we have at the moment?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

??? Look again, it clearly has CO2 levels on it. The name of the first graph I listed was "CO2-temperature-plot". That it is missing the last century's data is irrelevant as I already agree that CO2 levels are higher than in the past, and yes they are spiking.I realize you want to keep nitpicking perceived mistatements about CO2 so as to change the subject which is TEMPERATURE. Fluctuating CO2 would mean nothing with the exception of what it means for temperature. That is what I keep trying to pull this back to.Look at both the graph I initially pointed to, or the one you have presented (in fact let's use that one since you keep pointing to it). What you see is that while Temp tends to vary with CO2 it is not a 1:1 correlation in change by any means. Interestingly temps (and CO2) have been climbing from well before the 1800s. The spike in CO2 is higher than seen before, but we see that CO2 levels have spiked in the past due to nonhuman sources.
Thus temps and CO2 fluctuation are not alien. We have only added a new source for CO2 spiking. First, can you please admit that you were mistaken in stating we have never seen world temperatures as high as we see today? That is pretty obvious in the graph you listed as well as the other graphs I linked to previously.Second, we have clearly seen as long of periods as we have today of sustained elevated temps. Your scale may distort that view but again, that is allowing your eyeball to draw incorrect information from the data presented in it. If you are refering to the lengthy hovering around 0 you will note that it is jagging around that point and starts back nearly 10K years ago. That is exactly what I mentioned in my last post, in response to your claim of a "longterm cooling trend". It all depends on how far back you go. As I stated, drawn back far enough you can see us bobbling back and forth at the peak stemming from the last great ice age.Although relatively "high" (again since before industrialization) we are in a period of relative temp stability (fluctuation around 0), and we have seen that kind of behavior in the past. From 200K forward we see several stable periods around a single temp (I realize it is anomoly but I am not going to say that every time).From a paleoclimatologist standpoint, I'd look at that graph and be interested that we seem to be seeing longer trends in stability around peaks and troughs, while maintaining some larger fluctuations.From a little before 10K on we moved up to a plateau which we are fluctuating around. The manmade CO2 spike has not resulted in an equal temp spike, and certainly not beyond anything we have seen in the past history of the planet. Have you seen the documents put out by the science organizations who are supportive of GW efforts? They use essentially the same language I do. Don't confuse my lack of definitive, explosive rhetoric to pretend I am arguing that there is no connection and that there are no reasons to address the issue.Let me posit quite the reverse. It is your hyperbole which prevents you from connecting with people that need to be convinced action is required, and alienates you from rational discussion on the topic.I have stated that I agree that there is evidence CO2 is accumulating more rapidly than in the past, and is at greater levels than in the past, and that it does have an effect on the climate. That I discuss this within the caveats inherent to the field is PROPER. When you don't you are the one making the mistake, not me. This is a perfect example of the kind of rhetoric which isn't necessary. My statement is that world climate and its mechanisms are not fully understood, and only recently have we been getting better models. There are factors beyond CO2 levels which effect climate, and more than man's interferences which effect BOTH CO2 and temp.You are trying to portray "unknown" factor as if I am talking about pink unicorns. I am discussing not well understood factors, some which may not yet be known, that work together to result in climate.Save New York? You think its going to be destroyed sometime soon? How is that going to happen exactly? And lets pretend (and that is really discussing pink unicorns) that NY could be wiped out in the immediate future. How is that different than any other natural disaster that hits large cities all the time.Mankind has been facing the ravages of nature all the time. Yeah increasing temps will call for having to deal with different ravages. Unless you are about to try and pull up the idea that we are Vena-forming our planet (it'll suddenly turn into venus) or noxious gas clouds are going to arise and kill everyone, we are not facing apocalypse we are facing inconvenience.Inconvenience should be enough to facilitate some action. Sometimes I get to wondering if people without gods yet raised in Abrahamic religion cultures find a need to reinvent their concepts of sin and apocalypse in science... it doesn't sell well to me. If CO2 is related to temp change then current increase aren't abnormal, they should be expected. In any case, you have not shown any of the above are true. Where is your evidence for temps we have not seen before or increases we have not seen before? Even your commentary on "prolonged periods" lacks evidence, as well as a reason to be overly concerned if that were in fact the case. I did answer this question, which only leads me to assume that you are not reading my entire posts again. You can see that nature has dealt with varying levels of CO2 in the past. What leads you to believe there is some level, over which those same processes disappear?I am not suggesting that the processes will increase and so reduce and reverse manmade contributions. Just that the effects on temp may very well be limited, and if we cut back on CO2 production (as well as OTHER manmade factors), we can come back in balance with natural processes.Its like the pollution in certain great lake area lakes and rivers which were horribly polluted. They had levels beyond anything nature could have introduced. When reductions were made such that natural processes were capable of dealing with the loads, they returned to "pristine" states.And I repeat to you, if what you assert is true... that we have reached levels never seen before and there is a limit beyond which no processes do work, then why are we to believe anything can be achieved by stopping emitting all the CO2 we want? Think about this carefully, unless you are suggesting the end is nigh we are both appealing to the same processes when arguing for policy to help reverse climate trends effected by CO2 accumulation. Your hyperbolic rhetoric is apocalyptic in nature. You point to a data point, or a trend in data and conclude disastrous effects are necessary and irreversible... indeed beyond natural processes. Heck, you JUST referred to NY needing to be saved. Find where I said that. That is a gross distortion of my position. I'm sorry that science is incapable of supporting your level of exaggeration, but the rest of what you say does not follow from what I argued.Floods already do happen and they have for some time. Same for famines and droughts. We are certainly likely to see more flooding, but we are already facing that as a trend due to overpopulation, urbanization, and poor urban planning. Its hard to predict famines and droughts as we are likely to have more water in some areas, than not.Again, we have your apocalyptic vision of all sorts of catastrophes (some patently conflicting) visited upon man as some sort of divine retribution, in ways that we can't deal with? Although inconvenient, why do you believe humans could not change their technology and behavior to live within new parameters? I said I see that there is an issue. Remember, I urged restraint and progressive programs to deal with it? Yeah, I don't see that NY is going to disappear within my lifetime (though NO did without global warming as a significant factor), and you don't agree with my suggested route of dealing with the issue we face. I was simply using that as an example. You punked on my suggestion of restraint and progressive programs. I raised the question of what many Doom-sayers (like Gore) are pushing as "solutions".My analogy was apt. I am being pointed to a "crisis" which must be addressed with policy. What crisis, what policy? Bush claimed terrorists are a major threat and must be dealt with the way he says. I am pointing out in BOTH cases, that the threat is not as major as being broadcast, and none of the solutions so far placed on the table seem worthy.It should be clear that I think something ought to be worked on and there are workable solutions. Frankly I like cooler temps and glaciers and don't want to be inconvenienced with more storms or having to move to avoid them. I wasn't giving a review, I was stating my opinion based on previous encounters with his efforts on social policy. This is after all the guy that put the labels on records because Prince had "masturbation" in a song. Before he became the adoptive king of GW, he was known for distortion of facts and overreaction (even if robotlike calm on the exterior).As it is I have not seen the movie because it is not out where I am living, though I must admit I don't have a lot of time for movies and his would be lower on the list. I'm certain I will see it at some point and I'll give it a fair shake. Maybe he'll surprise me. People have before.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You are not undercutting my point. You know as well as I do that we did not have the data at that time to make the statements we are seeing here, especially with regard to comparisons to past climates on the earth.What we had was purely a theoretical issue that could go one way or the other. CO2 could trap temps and increase them, and maybe we should look into ways not to produce them. That is it.In fact there was a short time (around that same time) where dipping temps drove people to speculate that we were causing a new ice age to come on. I understand crash might be too young to know about this, but surely you remember it.The CO2 effect is only turning out to be different in that RECENT data is accumulating to back that as a legitimate concern. It is inaccurate to say we've KNOWN anything about GW from the body of scientific data for the last 40 years. Well I agree they are rising so you don't have to add it. Are people not understanding what I mean by restraint? I mean restraint on its emission, not retraint on making policy regarding CO2.We must try to be conservative in our emissions as they stand, while enacting progressive programs to reduce the amount we produce in a greater sense. Its sort of looking at it on the individual and societal level.But the question becomes regarding policy... what are we to do? I am hearing all this call to action, but right now it is empty of anything but urge to excitement. Give me something concrete to discuss. Well I think the reason for the denial is helped in part because of the hyperbolic delivery of the message. People have been making such claims from before we had the evidence, which taints the legitimate evidence we have been getting more recently. It allows for doubt. In addition, false claims continue to be made in excited tones which also cast doubt on what is being said.As it is we see crash here trying to make it look like I am rejecting CO2 as a factor, and as if I am only discussing natural factors for temp increases, when I am essentially "on his side".Clarity is not being achieved, with such hysteria and divisiveness. That is true, but that leaves it as an unknown, right? So all we are dealing with is a fear of the unknown. I agree that it would be wise not to tempt fate, but that is different than claiming something will in fact happen IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING (meaning anything) RIGHT NOW!!!! I'm not arguing for pushing that envelope. But the point is that we should perhaps be pitching that angle, the extreme inconvenience which may come with more chaotic weather patterns, rather than fictional apocalyptic scenarios playing out across the media.Honestly, if such things happen, we are likely to adapt and live with it right? Its just not the way we used to live. Don't you think pushing the fact that things will change lifestylewise to conservatives is more likely to get them to act than saying the end is nigh? What evidence is that? Its surface is practically molten, meaning we can't be sure of anything about its past surface conditions, and as far as I know atmospheric conditions cannot be traced without referring to evidence at the surface.Indeed what do you mean by much more temperate? Are you claiming life was likely to have existed there at some point? As far as I know temps were almost always beyond life sustaining, beyond exotic forms anyway.Do you honestly suggest that earth might suddenly tip into a Venus-type atmosphere? I'll admit it could be possible with enough work at it, but that is presently science fiction.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

AdminNosy: Sorry I missed the start of this but now it the time to drop this from this thread. Open a new one if you want. First of all, this information that the continents fit one another 'like perfect little puzzle pieces' does not come from Hovind. If Hovind used that argument, then he used that argument, and nothing more. If you haven't noticed, Hovind piggybacks off of the data supplied by actual scientists in the field, as opposed to him coming up with these arguments on their own. The reason I mentioned it is because that is dubious and misleading. I find it interesting that the conept of Pangea was first advanced by a French creationist. It is possible that it could be true, but then again, there are other theories just as plausible.http://www.scientificexploration.org/...s/pdf/14.3_pratt.pdf Edited by AdminNosy, : Topic warning.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Yes. That's surprising to me. Let me guess the two: Richmond and Virginia Beach/Norfolk? I lived in Virginia Beach for about 6 months and it seemed very 'progressive' to me. I also joined the Navy at the Richmond MEPS station and I have a buisness associate who lives out there. Both seem fairly progressive cities to me. LOL! Grand Druid... that was funny. Uh, I'm not a fan of Gore at all, however, I would judge the movie based on the evidence it presents and whether or not its some sensationalistic tactic to further its own agenda which might have more political roots than it does ecological reasons. But as I said, I'm not totally sold out on the notion of Global Warming being the cause of humans. I happen to be leaning more towards Holmes on this one. Nonetheless, human actions can only exacerbate the phenomenon. I think we should live in a manner that should still seek to lower emissions and overall, pollution. I'm just not so sure that this isn't mostly the cause of a natural cycle. Despite my aversion towards the internet entrepreneur, Gore, I will still see it. I had an unwaivering aversion towards Micahel Moore, but I still managed to watch Fahrenhype 911.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Correct on the Richmond, but the second one was Charlottesville. There may have eventually been a few more, but when I was searching for a theater to watch it in, it only listed Richmond and Charlottesville for Virginia. To me, if you get down to the very basics of it, its pretty simple and obviously human induced. We all agree on the greenhouse effect, and that it is a good thing. We all agree that the greenhouse effect is the result of certain "greenhouse gases", which include carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and others. Some greenhouse gases can absorb more, and therefore re-radiate, more heat than others. I believe that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, however, there is a much larger quantity of CO2 than methane. I also believe that we have measured current CO2 levels to be at far higher levels than any in the past hundreds of thousands of years, with a measurable and dramatic spike since the industrial revolution. (and the movie does a great job of showing this)So...greenhouse effect...greenhouse gases...the more the gases the greater the effect...(black magic occurs) and voila...global warming!So when you laugh at people studying farting cows...it's all about methane and global warming!~clpMINI

---

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.

But not the current ones. That's what I was saying. A completely meaningless statement, akin to "there's no warming happening, except for all the warming that is happening." Why would it be? Can you point to any climatologist who has asserted that absolutely nothing in the universe varies on Earth except the CO2 levels and the temperature? That the only influence on the Earth's atmospheric temperature is the level of CO2? Any climatologist at all?How about anybody in this thread? No? Anybody at all?Then why are you arguing against statements than nobody's making? It's not a spike, though. That is, if we don't do anything about it, it's not going to be a spike; it's going to be the new baseline. I am not mistaken. The consistent elevated temperatures are unlike anything in the paleoclimate data, and they're certainly higher than ever recorded. I don't consider brief spikes that disappear in the normalized data to be anything like the consistent elevated trend that we observe to this day.What am I missing? Show me in the data. I don't see it. I don't see anything at all like today's consistent elevated temperatures. Ludicrous. We are definately not in a period of temperature stability. If you disagree, show me your data. I've shown you mine and it shows a clear warming trend. Not caveats, Holmes. Outright denials. You deny that CO2 has a warming effect, in the face of the scientific consensus to the contrary. And you do this from the basis of absolutely no data whatsoever.You disagree? Show me the data that supports your contention. I don't understand why you think that's relevant. Obviously there exists more in the universe than just the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, and a bunch of thermometers taking it's temperature. Obviously there are other factors that affect climate.So what? Explain the relevance. None of those factors are known to ameliorate the effects of 400 ppm CO2 levels in the atmosphere. None at all. None of them are even suspected as the primary cause of the Earth's warming trend. So why are they relevant? Anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause. I don't know a single person who argues that it's the only cause, and I challenge you to present statements to the contrary.But it's certainly the only relevant cause, because it's both the largest cause and the cause that our actions are directly responsible for. All these other unknowns you think are so important are nothing but red herrings. Distractions from an important issue. Because it's potentially preventable, or at least, manageable. That strikes me as a fairly large difference. But what does it matter? What does it matter if it's "different" from other natural disasters? They call them "disasters", Holmes, because we would prefer that they not happen. Because it's bad when it happens.What do you have against New York, anyway? Could you point out exactly where I've had "visions of the apocalypse"? You make it sound like what we're talking about is little worse than running out of beer on a Sunday.The realistic consequences of rising sea levels and increasing temperatures on our populations are not "inconviniences." No more than Katrina flooding New Orleans was an inconvinience. That was a serious issue that took most of the nation's attention and resources to address. People called it the worst American disaster in 10 years. Can you imagine that happening to even three or four of our low-lying coastal cities in the space of a decade? That strikes me as pretty serious. Not apocalyptic - just a major issue, the kind that puts potentially fatal stresses on a country's economy. Nations have fallen under less.But in Holmes' view of history, nothing bad ever happens, so we're all safe, right? Cities can't flood. Famines never happen. Droughts are a myth. Or rather, those things do happen, but it's not like anybody got hurt, right? Just "inconvinienced." So it's not a huge deal, and anybody who says different is just being a mean ol' buzzkill. Could you point out my specific statements where I said it was irreversable? Post numbers, please, or better yet you could even quote the exact language.I mean your accusation here doesn't even make sense. If I thought it was irreversable, why would I support policies to try to reverse global warming? This is idiotic, Holmes. You're all over the map: "warming isn't happening." "it's happening but it won't have any results." "it'll have results, but it's not like the Earth will be destroyed, so who cares?"I guess I see the flooding of cities and the failure of crops as a serious issue. Something to be avoided if possible. Something that, if we plan for it, we can save a lot of lives.You don't, I guess. Restraint from what, exactly? I understood that to mean "restraint from doing anything different than we are now." Exactly what was it you intended to be restraining? And I don't know what you mean by "progressive". Or "programs", for that matter.In other words, you think you advocated some kind of policy, but the words you used communicated no meaning at all to me. I ignored them because they contained nothing to pay attention to. Geez, stop with the apocalyptic visions, already! You're scaring me! Sheesh, check out Mr. Doom-and-Gloom over here, guys! Just talking to you is like staring into the abyss!Seriously, though. Yes, floods and famines have happened in the past. The thing is - we're not very good at handling them. They cost resources. If they're going to start happening at a greater rate, in places that aren't prepared for them, we're not going to be able to handle them well at all. The effects are going to be widespread and probably not very good.I see that as an issue to do something about. To prepare for the worst, but try to make it not happen in the first place. I don't know what you think about it at all. On one hand, you seem to think it's apocalyptic fear-mongering to even assert the need to plan for the danger. Then, on the other, you're agreeing that the danger is present!I simply don't even know what we're disagreeing about any more. Your schizophrenic posts are all but unintelligible in terms of trying to percieve a coherent position in them. Or rather, there's one very, very obvious throughline in your posts so far - "whatever my opponent says is wrong." You're a relentless contrarian, and it's obvious that you're not interested in debate or discussion, but nothing more than rhetorical one-ups-manship.