Given the fact that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, you shouldn't forget the benefits of chili cook-offs!

..sorry- was paying attention to the dying part.

Global warming is a hoax? Could you provide data, articles or opinions of reputable scientists to support that assertion or is that just your (unqualified?) opinion.

Yeah, Paul, give us data, articles, and opinions to prove that global warming doesn't exist... from scientists who depend on the grants they receive to study global warming and would be out of a job if they disproved it.

I'm gonna not make a point, or rally address the issue at all but just sound like a paranoid delusional.

Global warming is not a hoax. It's the suggestion that we puny humans are the sole and primary cause of it that is.

Besides, I like the idea of being able to take a cruise to the North Pole in 15 years.

So who fund grants that only pay out if they show that global warming is occuring? How about an example of that silverbubble?

As far as I know NOAA and other bodies fund research on the climate, and the money is not in anyway dependant on the outcome of the research. infact reasearch in any field is always supposed to be funded up front, not retro-actively.

Well, I have no experience with the NOAA but I do have experience with other government agencies that distribute funds for basic research (NSF, AFOSR, etc.) And while I agree that in principle their funding is not dependent upon outcome, the process of peer review lends itself to just that kind of filtering. And it need not even be deliberate. Thus it would not surprise me to find clear predispositions to fund research that advances a particular point of view. But again, I must disclaim any knowledge of that occurring here.

Global warming is not a hoax. Blaming the cause on SUV's might be a hoax, but the warming trend is undeniable.

One question (and it is somewhat related), if a tobacco company gave a large grant to a group to research the effects of smoking on middle aged men, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the research team to either find NO negative effects (and thus endear themselves to an industry with a lot of money) or leave the study "open-ended", saying we found no ill effects, but need more time (and more money)?

Therefore, if a group offers a grant to research global warming, would it not seem true that the research team would agree with the grant giver, and thus endear themselves to that group, thereby almost guaranteeing themselves the job when the next study is needed?

Hmmm.

So who fund grants that only pay out if they show that global warming is occuring? How about an example of that silverbubble?

Oblivious to the obvious.

Show me a grant to disprove Global Warming. That's all the answer you need.

Frankly I'm hoping for a bit of Global Warming. So what if the artic ice cap melts, it's not like it'll raise the sea level or anything. Hell it's ice that's already floating on the sea. If melting icebergs caused sea levels to rise then someone needs to explain why my ice filled gin & tonic doesn't overflow when the ice melts.

Ahhh. New Jersey Italian food and Florida temperatures! Now that's combination I could live with.

Silverbubble -- any scientist who can show that anthropogenic global warming is not happening will be (1) a millionaire and (2) a Nobel Prize winner. I know it makes you feel good to believe Michael Chichton's silly conspiracy theory, but there's zero evidence that's it's true.

Frankly I'm hoping for a bit of Global Warming. So what if the artic ice cap melts, it's not like it'll raise the sea level or anything. Hell it's ice that's already floating on the sea. If melting icebergs caused sea levels to rise then someone needs to explain why my ice filled gin & tonic doesn't overflow when the ice melts.

That's hilarious. No one has ever claimed melting icerbergs would cause the sea level to rise. The concern is that the melting of ice sheets ON LAND (Antarctica, Greenland) will cause the levels to rise.

Ed,

Pass me a gin & tonic!

By the way, most of the Arctic ice is on land. Take it from this former Alaskan, there is a lot to melt, and it is doing just that.

The real change is occurring in the more temperate regions, where two or three degrees means the difference between winter snow accumulating in the mountains, or rain that immediately runs off to the ocean. When the snow doesn't accumulate, the streams and rivers dry up in the summer. That can devastate sushi bars because the fish can't spawn.

Still, I'll be drinking Ed's gin and driving my SUV until someone can prove either my breath or my car's farts are causing the problem.

Earl is right. I'm a climate scientist and if I could prove that climate change was not anthropogenic I could get any faculty job in the country. Furthermore, you don't write a proposal to prove an idea; you write it to test a hypothesis. Finally, why do you buy some yahoo's prediction about future sun activity? Sure we all know about sunspots and longer term cycles, but where is the proof for this?

Show me a grant to disprove Global Warming. That's all the answer you need.

What a waste of money that would be. Show me a grant to disprove plate tectonics, why don't you. Global warming is happening, without any doubt whatsoever. How else would you explain this: January Was America's Warmest on Record?

How much effect humans are having on the process is obviously disputed, but there will be no disproving of global warming. Then again, you don't understand the difference between floating ice and ice sheets on land, so you'll probably continue believing whatever suits you.

From AP today: "January was America's warmest on record"

I love that one Russian ASTRONOMER counts as all of the forces of science. Why can't "they" make up their mind? Crack research down here at the Wizbang.

Fluctuations are normal - the global rise of greenhouse gasses are not. This leads to greater heat production.

"Living is easy with eyes closed"

Well, here's a question, if humans are the ONLY cause of global warming (due to our burning of fossil fuels) why did the last ice age end before we humans began burning stuff? Did they just fart a lot more back then?

why did the last ice age end before we humans began burning stuff?

Because the earth's climate is, you know, complicated. No one is saying than human activity is the only reason the climate is changing; there are tons of possible reasons. But if we're making things much worse for ourselves in the future, we might want consider stopping.

Regular Dude: So the earth is getting hotter?

Scientist Dude: Probably.

Regular Dude: A lot hotter?

Scientist Dude: Maybe.

Regular Dude: Is it our fault?

Scientist Dude: Don't really know.

Regular Dude: Can we do anything to stop it?

Scientist Dude: Probably not.

Regular Dude: Can we still make air conditioners?

Scientist Dude: Absolutely.

Regular Dude: Cool.

There is little reason to doubt that the climate is getting warmer. But, bear in mind that it was just 1975 when science discovered that the climate was getting cooler. In fact, there was one proposal being floated to cover the ice cap with soot to help off-set the "alarming" cooling phase.

It seems equally clear that human activity is contributing to this warming trend (such as it is). CO2 is, after all a 'greenhouse' gas. But....there are also influences such as rotational precesion, orbital eccentricity, volcanic eruptions, solar activity et al that have a far more profound impact on our climate than your neighbor's E-V-I-L SUV. Or all the SUVs combined.

There isn't the tinest shred of credible scientific evidence to support the notion that, if we cut our emissions to zero, we could alter a pending climate shift. NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED!

So, before we start a World-Wide Welfare program (such as the Kyoto Accords), the admitted goal of which was to reduce global temperatures by .07 C (an amount that is not even measurable as a global mean temperature) with a timeline of 50 freaking years...and an estimated cost of $7 TRILLION dollars, somebody is gonna have to provide some REAL proof. And..the dirty little secret of the global warming scam is: they can't!

Wow. Keeping on the anti-science crusade. good job.

Oh, science I love!

Its politics disguised as science that I hate!

But if we're making things much worse for ourselves in the future, we might want consider stopping.

I agree.

However: how do you know we're doing that? That is, how do we know we're "making things much worse for ourselves?" Even if I were to grant that discretionary energy usage is the primary source of global warming, how do you know that the world environment is going to be worse for us as a result of it? This planet has seen climate shifts far greater than what we are seeing now; and life has adapted just fine. It certainly will not be the same but it's not clear it will be worse.

Secondly: how exactly do you propose we stop it? Do you honestly believe that is a feasible proposition? The reductions mandated by Kyoto will have a negligible impact; furthermore, among countries that are not bound by its protocols are many whose energy consumption will be increasing far faster than those that are.

I mean: can anyone credibly propose the cessation of fossil fuel use? Or for that matter, can anyone credibly propose a decrease of global energy consumption?

Now to be clear, I am all for the development of clean energy production methods derived either from renewable sources or more slowly depleting ones. (Thus including nuclear fission for example.) There are a whole host of reasons to do this. The problem is, that those in the political sphere who scream "GLOBAL WARMING!" the loudest seem to be bound to those who would prefer we just all move back into caves and burn wood. (Only, burning wood will be prohibited.)

>Wow. Keeping on the anti-science crusade. good job.

No you dim wit. It isn't ANTI sciene. it is PRO science.

That's the problem. We DON'T HAVE ANY SCIENCE. All we have is a self perpetuating fad.

Guess you belived in Cold Fusion too huh? numbskull.

I'm with you on this one, Paul!! I've always said that it's NATURAL for the temperature to rise and fall over time, and, since our pollution output pales beside what even ONE volcanic eruption spews into the atmosphere, the idea that we humans were altering the climate was ridiculous.

(enjoying a warm winter in SoCal)

I'd be much more willing to listen to global warming alarmists if their solution wasn't the elimination of capitalism and a return to enclosed feudalism.

But, bear in mind that it was just 1975 when science discovered that the climate was getting cooler. In fact, there was one proposal being floated to cover the ice cap with soot to help off-set the "alarming" cooling phase.

That's a myth.

since our pollution output pales beside what even ONE volcanic eruption spews into the atmosphere

That's also wrong.

Sorry, left out the link.

Wrong again, Earl.

Here's the link:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential2/april_28__1975_newsweek___the_cooling_world___by_peter_gwynne.guest.print.html

And...while your digesting that little bit of crow, I'll get you the link on the emission reports for the Mt Pinitumbo eruption. I seem to recall 14 million metric tons of sulfer dioxide in 48 hours....but I'll have to double check that.

I've been doing some reading here and there since the last time you posted about global warming and come to my own conclusion that the science linking us to global warming could be bogus (i.e. the hockey stick that you can also create through Montecarlo simulation (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html), etc.). But I don't see how scientists could make up the amount of CO2 that we put into the air since it's a very measurable quantity (CO2 per car * number of cars + C02 per KwH * KwH + ...). And it's a signiifcant amount of CO2 that we're putting into the air (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/graphics/globcarb.gif).

If I were President I'd say, we don't really know what our CO2 is going to do to our environment and our panet, so let's tread lightly and try to reduce it.

I'm a little skeptical of ethanol. The process of making ethanol gives off carbon dioxide. It's a question of are we pumping carbons out from below the ground and burning those into the air from oil or are we sucking carbons out of the soil into corn and then fermenting it into the air? What's the difference? They say you can bottle the CO2 and use it to clean mining equipment or something but once you let it out of the bottle, where does it go? The CO2 in my Coke at McDonalds has to go somewhere, right? I'd like to see the comparative numbers on that.

Also, a lot of carbons (I think almost half) are from burning coal to have electricity (for things like electric cars). Half of my electric bill is from 4 computers that I leave on all the time to catch worms and viruses. These global warming scientists have whole farms of computers cracking away for their next paper and they want me to replace my light bulb with some $40 "environmentally green" one?

Oops! My bad! it was 20 million tons!
Link:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/

Solo -- I like how you totally trust the MSM (Newsweek no less!) when it suits your needs. Hate to tell you, but Newsweek isn't exactly a scientific publication. Here's a discussion of that exact article -- this was linked to the page I provided, but you obviously missed it.

They key passage in the Newsweek article is this: "'Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,' concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. 'Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.'"

Typical MSM, overhyping the situation.

Also, 14 million metric tons is the same as 14 Tg. As the link I provided said, human activity adds about 79 Tg sulfur/year to the atmosphere.

Pretty sure I'm not the one eating crow.

Actually, there's a much better link than this but I can't locate it right now. It has all the numbers of what was estimated for the various emissions. It's staggering really!

YOu could locate it by googleing "Mt. Pinitubo"

Oops! My bad! it was 20 million tons!

Yeah, that bolsters your case a lot.

Well, for anyone truly interested in the subject, there is an interesting piece of research being conducted. Of course, this poor hapless scientist has already raised the ire of the Imams of the global warming religion and will, no doubt, be burned at the stake for heresy. but...

Here's the link:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V7/N4/EDIT.jsp