An inconvenient truth.... or lie?

Buzz, I want to confirm your position here.Are you suggesting that the United Nations has (wittingly or unwittingly) conspired to use climate issues to justify forcing industrialized nations to pay reparations to the 3rd world for environmental damage? That human-caused global warming is not simply bad or hoax science, but is actually part of a plan to redistribute wealth?

Not all climate change needs to be man-made. Nobody has ever seriously suggested that, without man's interference, the Earth's average temperatures would remain static.Neither is anyone so stupid as to propose that all life on Earth will end should the temperature rise a few degrees. Well, not outside of big-budget Hollywood blockbusters, but then those aren't exactly held to any sort of relationship with reality.The problem with global warming is not that it will annihilate life, but rather that it will apply selective pressures that will change a status quo that currently favors us very strongly. Any change to that status quo will require us to adapt - something we, as a species, are perfectly capable of doing, but as individuals and nations are very reluctant to do. And people will die, and that's a rather unfortunate thing.The question of human involvement with climate change has not been one of assessing blame or of claiming that the sky is falling. Rather, it has always been about what we can or cannot do to minimize damage to modern human societies. This means that, if humans are causing the globe to warm or are exacerbating a natural temperature shift, or even if we're not to blame at all but are capable to affecting a natural change, then we can take steps to slow or reverse warming and preserve our current way of life.That's all. It is very well established from multiple sources that the Earth is warming up. The current rise in temperature may or may not be partially or primarily the result of human industrialization. Previous warming and cooling trends are irrelevant to whether this particular event is being caused in large part or small by humanity. The importance of determining the source is not about blame, but rather what our proper response should be to minimize damage.Your work as a geologist is irrelevant to climate research issues simply because natural warming trends from the past do not in any way rule out the possibility of human industry causing an artificial (ie, man-made, not "fake") change in global mean temperatures.Facts have been very sparse in this thread. There has been much referral to blogs, and commentary, and videos, but so far no actual quotes from the emails, no analysis from a qualified independent climatologist on the actual meaning of the emails (as opposed to what silly journalists and talk-show hosts think they mean), and no addressing the fact that climate research has been carried out at countless Universities around the globe as opposed to these results coming from only one corrupt group of frauds.This thread (and the topic at large, in the real world) needs more facts and less fearmongering and distrustfulness. The "public" may not trust scientists due to this fiasco, but then, the "public" by and large is comprised of idiots who wouldn't be able to comprehend an actual scientific paper should they actually take the time to read one instead of listening to what Bill O'Reilly thinks it means.

Well. This is about what I expected, Buzz. Soyes, you do in fact believe that the UN is using climatology and teh threat of global warming in a vast conspiracy to engineer a massive payout to the 3rd world.Buz, do you have any idea how absurd that it? The UN has absolutely no control over any nation, period. It cannot interfere with another nation's sovereignty - resolutions carry only the force of the individual nations' willingness to support them. A trade embargo resolution has no force behind it if a member nation decides to disregard.Further, you're seriously suggesting that industrialized nations, which incidentally comprise most of the UN Security Council's permanent members and thus each have a veto power, will be "forced" by the UN (which, again, cannot force anything) to pay trillions of dollars in reparations to developing nations.For what benefit, Buz? Giving warlords cash so they can continue to fuck things up worse? Funding already-failed states? "Forced globalization?" You're making absurd accusations and backing it up with interpretations of ancient prophesy, completely disregarding any inconvenient facts that don't agree with your bizarre fantasy.It's a conspiracy theory, Buz, and a poor one at that. Do you honestly think that the US, for instance, would really go through with paying "reparations" to poor countries based on climate changes that affect developed countries as well, and (assuming human-affected warming) for which the developing world now shares a hand in anyway?"OH NOES! ONE WORLD GOV"MENT! THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST! REPENT FOT EH END IS COMING!"How many people have said the same things, Buz, for how many centuries? How many times has the world ended? I do not in any way dispute that blogs can be an effective tool for communication and spreading ideas. However, when evidence is demanded, you cannot respond with Joe Blow's opinion of the evidence. That would be like me relying exclusively on Richard Dawkins' opinion of the Bible rather than reading it myself. You'd hardly let me get away with quoting Dawkins if you asked me for chapter and verse. For the same reason, a blog, while useful in presenting an argument, is not evidence of anything other than that someone has an opinion. And from what I understand, those are apparently just as common as assholes.

Well, it was somewhat amusing Buz, because you're using the term in the "common sense" definition...which isn;t really what the word means at all. "

quote:

---

—noun
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
6. Computers. logic circuit.

---

Unfortunately for you, "common sense" often has little to do with reality. What you, as a layperson, reason to be "likely" results of global warming are simply not the case.Evaporation could indeed increase...but unfortunately water vapor is actually a significant greenhouse gas, meaning the process accelerates itself. This can be somewhat diminished through increased cloud formation (as clouds reflect sunlight), but not all water vapor forms clouds, and trapped heat is still trapped.Actual scientists have provided estimates on how much land mass will be lost as the oceans rise using actual numbers and data from real-world observations.Aside from that, however, rising sea levels are only part of teh problem. The melting of the polar ice caps introduces large amounts of cold water into our oceanic system - something we take for granted, but which in reality drives all of the weather patterns on Earth. The temperature differentials that drive ocean currents also drive atmospheric currents like the Jet Stream...and that, for example, is what keeps northern Europe and the British Isles habitable.Large amounts of other greenhouse gases (and other things) are trapped in ice...and as the ice melts, those gasses will be released, accelerating the process further. A similar runaway warming effect was at one time hypothesized to have ben responsible for a mass extinction event, as large amounts of methane gas trapped in ice was released rapidly.Climate change isn't jsut about rising water levels. It's literally about changing the climate, everywhere on Earth. We know that monsoons strike asia, that hurricanes form off the coast of Africa and head West, that the Jet Stream is a current of air moving from west to east over the US and which drives th weather patterns for not only North America but influences Europe as well.Changing climates are not the end of the world, per se, because humanity has the ability to adapt to its nvironment pretty well. But not all animals and plants are able to do so. The disruption to the ecosystem could cause massive amounts of extinctions and migrations that uproot the status quo and leave us floundering, wondering where the fish went, why our crops wont grow in the same places, why it's so damned cold or hot, dealing with bizarre weather patterns, and so on.We're talking trillions of dollars or more in terms of cost, needing to be spent over a short time as we adapt to the changes. We're talking about millions of lives lost to starvation, disease, or natural disasters. We're talking about poorer coastal regions that don't have the money to erect levies and other structures being simply erased from the map, sometimes entire cultures gone.It's a very large problem, and basically no climate scientist argues that we're seeing the beginning of this process, and that these are the results we'll see if it continues - even on the order of raising global mean temperatures by just a degree or three.The only actual debate is whether humanity is responsible for the rising temperatures, meaning humanity can back off and slow down or prevent the process before we suffer the above consequences.Most of the scientific community has agreed that humanity is likely a major contributing factor in the current warming trend. This is preferable only because we would still possibly be able to do something about it. If the process is completely natural and cannot be influenced by humanity...we'd better just skip to the damage control.Nowhere in any of that, of course, is an intended mass reparation payment to anyone. This isn't a US problem or a Canadian problem or a Chinese problem. This is a problem caused by and affecting the entire globe, and throwing money at poorer countries isn't going to do squat. In fact, less developed countries will ironically suffer less in terms of population and property lost, simply because they don;t tend to have as much to lose in the first place. Destroying a coastal city on the African coast, for example, isn't as serious in terms of lives and dollars lost as the destruction of New York.The developed world will be pretty busy trying to protect its own already-developed infrastructure and population. I'm sure aid will be sent to other nations, but not the absurd "reparations" you've suggested.

Welcome! I'm simply a layman who reads a decent amount and has a decent memory, nothing more. I'm not a climatologist. "Runaway" is a relative term. Certainly the Earth does not appear to have experienced the effects of the type of runaway global warming that Venus has experienced. However, the atmosphere of the Earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling, for various reasons. Various hypotheses that I have read include the type of cascade or chain-reaction type effects that I spoke of earlier, where warming eventually results in a greater natural output of greenhouse gasses and accellerates itself. Obviously, since the Earth is now cooler than it has been at various points in its past. Warming and cooling cycles [i]are[/] natural, as I said, for a variety of reasons including biological, volcanic, meteorite impacts, and other causes. The question today is how to react to the current warming trend. The proper response depends a great deal on whether human society has greatly influenced the current trend, because if we have, we may be able to do something to stop it. If we have not, it's simply time to focus on damage control. Again, the causes for cooling can be varied. As one example, volcanic eruptions are thought to contribute to clobal cooling:

quote:

---

Volcanic eruptions are thought to be responsible for the global cooling that has been observed for a few years after a major eruption. The amount and global extent of the cooling depend on the force of the eruption and, possibly, its latitude. When large masses of gases from the eruption reach the stratosphere, they can produce a large, widespread cooling effect. As a prime example, the effects of Mount Pinatubo, which erupted in June 1991, may have lasted a few years, serving to offset temporarily the predicted greenhouse effect.

​

As volcanoes erupt, they blast huge clouds into the atmosphere. These clouds are made up of particles and gases, including sulfur dioxide. Millions of tons of sulfur dioxide gas can reach the stratosphere from a major volcano. There, the sulfur dioxide converts to tiny persistent sulfuric acid (sulfate) particles, referred to as aerosols. These sulfate particles reflect energy coming from the sun, thereby preventing the sun's rays from heating the Earth.

​

Global cooling often has been linked with major volcanic eruptions. The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer." It was a time of significant weather-related disruptions in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815 in Indonesia. The volcano threw sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, and the aerosol layer that formed led to brilliant sunsets seen around the world for several years.

---

In this case we'reonly talking about a few degrees of cooling globally from a given eruption, but the effects can be significant.The Earth has also experienced various ice ages in its past, and these are theorized to be the result of multiple phenomenon:

quote:

---

The causes of ice ages remain controversial for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial—interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.

​

Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2).

​

Maureen Raymo, William Ruddiman and others propose that the Tibetan and Colorado Plateaus are immense CO2 "scrubbers" with a capacity to remove enough CO2 from the global atmosphere to be a significant causal factor of the 40 million year Cenozoic Cooling trend. They further claim that approximately half of their uplift (and CO2 "scrubbing" capacity) occurred in the past 10 million years.

---

A good instinct.The problem is that, with the current trend in warming, we have a definite correlation with human industrialization and a corresponding dramatic increase in greenhouse gas (particularly CO2) production. Establishing causation from that correlation is somewhat more difficult, and has been the subject of much research and debate.Unfortunately, we're current approaching a point where it really doesn't matter whether human beings are causing global warming, because the damage will already be done.Remember though, as I said earlier, we are not talkign about the "end of teh world" or even human society. This isn't "The Day After Tomorrow." Climate change is rapid on geological timescales, but we aren't going to wake up tomorrow and find that rain forests have become frozen tundra and New York is now covered in water."Climate change" is exactly that. We'll see rising sea levels, and that will cause damage to coastal regions - but nobody is seriously suggesting that New York will be the next Atlantis. "Climate change" means that climates are going to change. Salinity levels will change as freshwater glaciers melt into the ocean. Oceanic temperatures will change, which combined with salinity changes can disrupt oceanic currents and thus global weather patterns. Species around the globe will be placed under new selective pressures, and the entire ecosystem will be disrupted (which is different from being destroyed). It's certainly nothing that hasn't happened before in Earth's history. Human beings have sufficient technology to adapt to the changes as a species, but the transition will involve plenty of death and money spending. Imagine if salinity changes or other oceanic effects cause a massive die-off or even simply a mass migration of fish. That's the sort of change that can result in localized famines and the destruction of entire industries.If those sorts of changes can be prevented by lowering human emissions or taking other steps, it's certainly worthwhile to do so. Again, the question of human responsibility is not one of assigning blame or setting up absurd conspiracies like what Buz has suggested, but rahter to determine how best to minimize the damage.

Hi Buz,You're partially correct. Plants (and some bacteria) do function as excellent "CO2 scrubbers." They take CO2 and effectively spit out O2, using teh Carbon for their growth.When life first formed on Earth, CO2 based metabolisms were all the rage. O2 is var too volatile - Oxygen reacts to form other compounds very, very easily. That's the reason things burn, and is part of why Oxygen based metabolisms work so well - they produce a LOT more energy, which is for instance why we can move around and plants cant.But a long time ago, there just wasn't enough Oxygen in teh atmosphere to support Oxygen-based metabolisms. Plants eventually altered the atmosphere of teh Earth until Oxygen was prevalent - at which point the new selective pressures caused a massive explosion of Oxygen-breathing life (ie, it didn;t exist before, and suddenly in teh fossil record we start to see Oxygen-breathers appearing and thriving with great variety, and this coincides with ancient atmospheric evidence showing the increase of Oxygen's availability).We, obviously, are one of the results of all of this. But you're "we breath O2 and exhale CO2, and plants do the reverse" comment is vastly oversimplified.Plant metabolisms are vastly slower than Oxygen-based ones. You;ve probably heard the old factoid that it takes seven large trees to produce enough Oxygen for each person to breathe. They do reduce CO2 and produce O2, but they do so slowly.Plants also function to "permanently" store the Carbon they use in teh ground. When they metabolize Carbon, it;s used in their body structure. The ashes that result from burning plants are mostly just carbon, in fact. All of that carbon is trapped in teh ground under normal circumstances.But given sufficient timeframe and the right conditions, dead plant matter becomes what we now use as fossil fuels. Millions of years of dead plant matter is pumped out of storage daily from oil wells and coal mines. We then burn the stuff...which releases many things back into the atmosphere, including but not limited to CO2, CO, and water vapor. CO2 and water vapor are both greenhouse gases.So while it;s true that plants will indeed reprocess the CO2 that we release back out of the atmosphere and trap it in the ground, there is a finite rate at which this process can occurr. Global deforestation isn;t helping matters. But more importantly, we're releasing millions of tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere, in addition to what the Oxygen-breathers just exhale naturally. The "balance" between O2 and CO2 consumption and production is completely out of whack - there just aren;t enough plants in the world to scrub the CO2 as quickly as we keep replacing it.It's like pouring water into a bucket with a hole. If you pur more water into the bucket than the hole can pass, eventually the bucket will start to overflow. With global warming, we're attacking both ends, shrinking the hole and pouring larger amounts of water every day as developing nations try to cheaply meet their rapidly increasing energy needs, and as developed nations continue to consume ever more.Take a look at this:World Bank, World Development Indicators - Google Public Data Explorer In 1960, global CO2 emissions were around 3.1metric tons of CO2 per person. That's already a lot of CO2. But by 2005, that had increased to 4.5 metric tons per person.In 45 years, global CO2 output has increased by 74%.That's not good. The Earth's ecosystem simply can't handle a 74% increase (and it's more than that - that's just the past 45 years). There aren't enough trees, there isn;t enough algea, there simply are not enough CO2 scrubbing organisms to trap CO2 as quickly as we're putting it all in the air.Now, this is not global warming data. This is just basic atmospheric measurements and calculations of industrial output, all done during a period when we could measure them directly. We aren't talking about computer simulations like what the climatologists in the leaked emails were working on - this is real-world actual data.There are a lot of factors involved in why we see an increase.Now, look at some data from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Now, this is also real-world data, most of which we've been able to directly observe and record.Take a look particularly at 1960 through 2005 on each of those graphs, since it coincides with out CO2 data.Again, we aren't even talking about the source of the CO2 yet - we're just noticing that the increase in CO2 seems to correlate with a rise in global temperatures.Note that the temperature rise is basically universal, even if it's spikey. Individual years can show significant variation, but the overall trend moves ever warmer.Now look at teh beginning of the graphs, at the 1800s. Notice that we didn't appear to be in the process of warming up...and then, right around the time of the Industrial Revolution, temperatures started to climb.Scientists have been looking at this data for a long time. We've analyzed various potential causes, even ones other than CO2. Stellar activity goes through an 11-year cycle, for instance, and that's been tossed around as an explanation...except that the warming trend has lasted a lot longer than can be explained by an 11-year stellar cycle. Even now, in a relative "calm" period of stellar activity, the Earth isn;t cooling back down.There really just aren't that many other sources of warming. We know that the atmospheric content has been relevant to climate changes in the past - ice core data shows that warmer periods show greater concentrations of greenhouse gasses, while cooler periods like ice ages tend to have lower concentrations (though this is oversimplified). In the end, we're not receiving an unusually large amount of energy from the Sun, but the Earth is getting unusually warm. If the same amount of energy is coming in and the Earth is warming up, that means we're radiating less energy into space.That means we're suffering from a greenhouse effect.The principle cause of planetary greenhouse effects are gasses like water vapor and CO2.You can see how this is all starting to come together, yes?I'm barely even toughing on human involvement. I see a correlation in the Industrial Revolution with the increase in greenhouse gasses and the beginning of the rise in temperatures. But correlation is not causation, and I'm frankly not knowledgeable enough on the subject to say with certainty that human industrialization is the primary factor in global warming. However, the correlation makes me suspect that human society has had a role, which means when scientists say that yes, human society is very likely responsible in large part for the current warming trend, I find them very easy to believe.Confirming this data are current observations. Giant ice shelves are breaking off of Antarctica - recently a very large iceberg was observed not far from New Zealand that had broken off and drifted North. Weather patterns are growing more and more varied - highs are getting higher, and lows lower, in many regions. The ice caps are visibly receding, to the point where we now have a Northwest Passage where none existed before.That global warming is happening is not up for debate - it's objectively, observably factually true.That human beings are in large part responsible is strongly suggested at the least...and those who have studied the problem in far more depth than you or I have suggested that the correlation is stronger than merely a suggestion.The released emails are not so embarrassing for the scientists involved - it's embarrassing to see exactly how few of the population actually understand what's being said, how few actually take the time to read what's being presented in context, and how many people believe Bill O'Reilly when he says "global warming has been conclusively shown to be a lie" when nobody who's even once looked at the numbers would ever even think that.

Buz, really. "Elitist people can empower themselves over the people?"The word "elitist" is nothing mroe than an absurd buzzword. It's used to somehow make the opinions of educated and knowledgeable people seem worth less than the uneducated and compeltely ignorant random Joe on the street, which is patently stupid.What, to you, is an "elitist," Buz?The only people getting rich right now are the people enjoying the status quo. There's a reason the gas, oil, and coal companies lobby heavily against nuclear power, against global warming, and spread lies: they're the ones taking our money without a care for the consequences.It's rather amusing that you should believe in absurd global conspiracies to engineer payouts to 3rd world countries, and yet don;t see the well-documented and easily verified agendas of the oil barons and their lobbyists.

I really should have pegged you as a conspiracy nut from the start, Buz. "Green activists" are not a monolithic group. Supporting cleaner air and water, desiring reduced reliance on fossil fuels for energy, wanting increased shifts to solar and air power are all worthy goals even if climate change were compeltely and totally false.Not all of us are "greenpeace." In fact, I'm an immensely strong supporter of nuclear power as our best hope for clean, reliable, long-term energy. Most "green activists" would think I'm almost as bad as you for that. Really? Where are all of the wind turbines produced? Where do solar panels come from? Exactly how does lessening reliance on fossil fuels undermine national sovereignty?You;re an idiot, Buz, if you honestly believe that shifting to greener energy sources is nothing more than a drain on our economies.In factm the "fat cats" you're talking about are in the real world (as opposed to your fantasy land) oil barons and other preservers of the status quo. The Middle East has become rich by feeding the unsatiable Western appetite for oil,to the point where we currently base much of our foreign policy on that region. Do you really think the US would be on such friendly terms with the Muslim Theocracy of Saudi Arabia if they didn't have their oil fields? Would we be constructing military bases in the region if we didn't rely on oil?You scoff at a splinter in the eye of another and completely miss the plank in your own. Fool.You carry on with your drivel about how emissions standards and other green policies will strangle the economies of the Western world. You even suggest that reparations will be paid to poorer nations. You base this on...nothing whatsoever. It;s a conspiracy theory, Buz. You;re no better than some moron on the street prattling on about UFOs and the gunman on the grassy knoll. Do you get your ideas from the Weekly World News? Are you also afraid of Batboy?The fact is, there's nothing whatsoever about climate change that even remotely carries forward an initiative for a single world government, or reparations to poorer nations, or the decline of national sovereignty, or any of your other insane musings.The fact is, changing industry over to cleaner standards creates jobs and helps the industrialized world economies, simply because that's where the new technology is developed and manufactured. It;s no different from the other major changes to industry - the introduction of plastics, computers that can fit on a desk, etc. The emissions standards serve not to strangle business, but to offer an incentive to businesses based on cleaner standards. I know you don't comprehend natural selection, Buz, but this is simply a form of artificial selection, where pressure is placed to cause industry to find that green is in their own best interest. I'm sure. Let me guess - Obama is the Antichrist, he's going to bring the world under his single government, and then Jesus comes back and takes you away?Seriously Buz - immediately provide objective, solid evidence for your claims:1) climate change prevention furthers a one world government
2) green technologies enrich the current "fat cats" more than the status quo does
3) reparations will be paid to the 3rd world in compensation for climate change that you simultaneously believe is not actually happening...or concede that you are, in fact, an imbecilic gasbag who simply repeats whatever fanciful nonsense most closely matches your "end times" fairy tale, without any reliance on evidence, logic, or in fact even sanity.