Global warming - fact or conspiracy?

I happen to be currently wrting an invited book chapter on certain specific ecological impacts of global warming, so I have been doing a bit of research on the subject. Here is one of the most interesting recent references I am citing:Fu, Quiag, C.M. Johanson, J.M. Wallace and T. Reichler. 2006. Enhanced mid-latitude tropospheric warming in satellite measurements. Science 312:1179.Fu et al. (2006) used 27 years of satellite data to demonstrate a global expansion of semi-arid tropical circulation by about 2 latitude over this period as a function of tropospheric warming between the latitudes of 15 and 45 that is equally pronounced during warm and cool seasons. The authors predicted rising air pressures at sea level around 30 latitude, a prediction that has been independantly confirmed. The results indicate that the arid subtropical regions are expanding and shifting the high altitude jetstream currents pole-ward. The implications for the central Great Plains are longer, hotter summers and reduced rainfall - like we get that much now.Have fun in Texas, Ludo The so-called 'controversy' over whether or not such effects are a function of human activity is just so much blather. We know what chemicals we are releasing into the atmosphere, we know their effects on the physics of the planet, its just a matter of connecting the dots. Anyone who says otherwise is just a shill for big business and industry that wants 'business as usual' for long enough that they can retire rich - future generation be damned. The truth is, it's going to cost us a lot more long term if we don't take some action soon.I highly recommend this site.Be sure to watch the trailer of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. You might also want to calculate your own 'carbon footprint' - mine came out at 21,000 pounds of CO2 annually - and I only have a 5 minute commute! So if the AVERAGE American releases 11 tons of Co2 annually, that's araound 2.8 billion tons of CO2 a year for the American population - without considering industry. Anyone going to try and tell me that's not going to make a difference to atmospheric chemistry? Also consider the rate of deforestation in the tropics - those forests are one of the biggest sponges for removing the CO2.

No, I don't think so.
The bias againstbelief in GW is created by business interests that don't want to see their profit margins shrink.
There is no direct profit motive or material gain to be had for publicly funded scientists for pointing out that our current activities are changing the planet for the worse. So you admit that China is currently prospering at the environment's expense? Kind of like we have for the last 70 years? When is it going to become incumbent on us to lead by example? You would have us continue as usual because others are doing the same?This is precisely the mind-set that leads to a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario. In case you are not familiar with it, it derives from medeival England where the townsfolk all grazed their animals on shared lands, or 'commons'. There were no rules of use for the commons, and very soon it became overgrazed and far less productive. The townsfolk saw this happening, slowly at first, but did nothing on the grounds that if they reduced their own herd, they would only be leaving more grass for their neighbor. Soon there were no useful pastures left for anyone, and only noxious weeds grew in the commons.Your argument is a typically conservative one and merely a shallow justification for selfish behavior and disregard for environmental stewardship and the quality of life that future generations will inherit.Let me say this. If you want to see something 'economy-crippling' just watch us stay the present course, because the American economy won't just be crippled by the consequences of global warming, it will eventually collapse to a mere shadow of its former self. You're thinking birds of paradise and lemurs, perhaps?
As a proponent of evolution, you have a pathetically poor perspective on the consequences of human influences on its processes.See any desirable species evolving in human-modified ecosystems?
What wildlife do you see in cities?
Filthy rats, starlings, and rock doves (=flying rats).
No, human-modified ecosystems provide opportunity for evolution of some of the most undesirable species imaginable.
For example, the range of malaria and many other dangerous tropical diseases are predicted to spread northward as a consequences of global warming.
Already in northern Europe, tropical plant disease vectors are being monitored that are causing serious agricultural problems much further north than they were ever reported before.
Also, indigenous aphid viral vestors are forgoing sexual reproduction and reproducing asexually year-round because of the warm winters, causing increasingly serious disease problems in cereal production.Here is another recent report all you 'head-in-the-sand', 'please don't harm the economy' conservatives should read.
And keep in mind, without a habitable planet, there will be no economy at all within a few generations.

I did not even own a car as long as I was a student in Canada.
I cycled everywhere - even hundreds of miles a day.
Now I live in American 'car culture' and there are few provisions for cyclists here.
As a professor now, the demands on my time are such that it's really hard to budget the extra time to cycle to work, but I really need to do it more often.I think that more human-powered transport could be part of the solution to global warming (and our obesity problem }, but it will probably take $10 a gallon gas for it to take off in America.PS: Some good rain gear can make all the difference on those wet days. In Vancouver, we used to say there was no bad weather - only improperly equipped cyclists .Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.

Agreed, but as long as there is effectively nothing at all being done about it, those opposed to ANY action are getting what they want - the status quo continued. No demonization paisan, just calling a spade a spade.
The wealthy industrialists have the most to lose by any changes in the status quo, so they are acting in their own selfish interests as usual by denying human responsibility and opposing any action that would affect their profits. Of course their spin is that 'jobs would be lost' but new, cleaner industries could create new jobs. Apart from changing weather and stronger tropical storms threatening coastal areas, rising sea levels from all the melting ice will eventually put a large portion of our highest valued coastal real estate under water. At least 5 billion dollars worth in Miami alone would be lost with a sea level rise of one meter. A two meter rise would threaten most of lower Manhattan. A large proportion of all the world populations live in low-lying fertile river deltas and rising sea levels will eventually create 100's of millions of refuges from these areas.The expansion of the arid subtropical circulation will cause desertification to increase from northern Mexico through the central plains, threatening the agricultural bread basket of the USA. What will happen to our economy if we come to depend not only on oil imports, but also on food imports?

This is simply not true. As Crash points out, there is no economic incentive for the investigative scientists to skew their findings one way or the other - and HUGE incentive for the pro-business side. Can't you wrap your brain around the possiblity that one side is actually doing research and presenting evidence, while another side is just grasping at straws trying to explain it away? It is the conservative deniers of climate change who are completely analogous to creationsists, because they are seeking to cherry-pick the evidence thy want to support their case - without doing any research of their own. So you don’t trust the conclusions of scientists because they are all ”ego-driven’ and this casues them to lie and distort their findings?? As far as profit from books and movies, it doesn’t work that way in science. You have to PAY to publish your work in a good journal. You are f***ing clueless. No it isn’t - not by a long shot - and your inference that it can be equated as such reveals your ignorance of how science works in this country. Trying to equate availability of grant funding to the profit motive in business enterprise is pure childishness. Even when funding opportunities are available, its highly competitive to access those funds, and even when you are successful, you are acquiring funds to HIRE PEOPLE and PAY EXPENSES for research - not to put in your own pocket. I should know, grant writing is part and parcel of my work, and its not easy.And I’ll tell you something else. If pure financial profit were a motive for becoming a scientist, WE WOULDN’T HAVE ANY, because scientists are all PAID SHIT compared to all the pork-bellied MBA’s running commerical enterprises. There is plenty of evidence that humans are the cause - conservatives just don’t want to face the facts so they don’t have to change anything they’re doing. There is so much evidence, it’s a simple matter of connecting the dots. Bellyaching !? Apparently you don’t grasp the gravity of the situation. And here you go with your ”biased scientists from both sides’ bullshit again. There ARE no reputable scientists on the other side - they are all just pathetic shills for big business who could never get a real research position and opted to whore themselves out to private enterprise. Not all conservatives are stupid people, but all stupid people are conservatives - John Stewart Mill

There is NO controversy about whether global warming is caused by human activity. That contention is just as contrived as the so-called 'controversy' about evolutionary theory.Here is an article expounding a journalist's viewpoint on the matter that all you doubters should read:A Perfect Storm Descends on the Nation's Capital - ABC NewsAnd another one that reveals the skeptics as the industry shills they truly are.Edited by EZscience, : Additional link

I think it is just as contrived.
These so-called 'skeptics' like Richard Lindzen are trying to generate a public perception of scientific controversy where none exists so they can buy time for the oil interests (who pay them handsomely for their 'opinions') to keep on with 'business as usual' for as long as they possibly can.Just read the second link I posted.Or this one which has a lot of references and other links:

quote:

---

"There appears to be a concerted and systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate scientific debate through the peer-reviewed literature, they are waging in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with which they disagree."

---

Perhaps not a stand alone institute like ICR, but they are co-opting a lot of existing right-wing think tanks to the same end.
Check out this link to see just who they are funding and their affiliations:http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ I think this is already happening with biofuels.
We have to assume they can read the writing on the wall and are already planning their diversification away from petroleum.

...is their true enemy.Various conbinations of small-scale, localized solar and wind energy production for home-owners would castrate their unholy enterprise.Look for corporate interests to oppose subsidies and compensatory reimbursemnt for local power generation ...the best approach to liberate the common man from dependency on corporate profiteering from energy.

...which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that these gases are undeniably amplifying any purported effects of solar radiation.

A worthwhile link to check out.