Wow. Did they really say the warmest temperatures in a million years? Usually they use "warmest temperatures ever. So I guess this is a step forward to ward reason and healthy skepticism.

This is great reading Lorie
SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth's temperatures and mankind's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.

Inhofe reported this on the Senate Floor yesterday. Full story here:http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

One of the ways you calculate temperature is in relations to CO2 levels in the atmosphere - currenlty at about 360 ppm,the highest level they have been for 700 000 years (measured by taking ice core samples).

An interesting report from two weeks ago. While 58% of Americans believe that there is some 'debate' about whether or not global warming is a reality, 100% of the papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals over the past 5 years have concurred that global warming due to man made emissions is occuring.

Many of the arguments put forward by global-warming naysayers remind me of those used by Creationists who claim there is some debate in science about whether evolution occurs. If the ratio of scientists who have data supporting one supposition is 100 000:1 (against those who claim otherwise), that is NOT a debate.

Part of the problem is special interest groups like Exxon fund alternative 'research' - google "Royal Society tells Exxon: Stop Funding Climate Change Denial."

Even the Bush Administration has agreed that global warming is occurring.

The only debate at this time is how bad things will be. That is difficult, if not impossible, to calculate - read up on chaos maths on wikipedia if you want to know why.

What people have to get their heads around is that the environment dictated the placement of our cities and farms - and that even minor changes in global weather patterns can have disasterous results.

Imagine New Orleans being regularily hit by category 5 hurricanes.

Australia has just come out of winter, yet our water catchments are the lowest on record. The Great Barrier Reef is dying. Our bananna industry was devasted last year by an unprecedented tropical storm. And $500 million dollars of damage was just sustained by our fruit industries dues to a (once again) unprecendented frost.

And don't even get me going about migrating disease vectors - malaria being just one of them.

One question the naysayers have NEVER been able to answer. If converting the economy to one that is 'carbon clean' is such a difficult, expensive process,.. why would 155 OTHER countries endevour to do this? I mean, if there was ANY doubt at all about global warming, you' think they'd hold off. But they haven't - they are prepared to bite the bullet, and at least try to do something about the problem.

It's amazing how, in one breath, Republicans will deny they are in the oil comapny's pockets -- that they aren't just just front men and women for the oil cartels -- yet in the very next breath they will condemn global warming and mount one attack after another on the scientific evidence that is mounting, daily.

One would think that if the Repubulicans are not just political shills for the oil companies they wouldn't really have such a stake in this game - but boy, as Lorie clearly illustrates, the Republicans are VERY interested in protecting their oil company pals.

And to those morons who claim that the oil company's are juggling gasoline prices to benefit the Republicans at election time -- this is the other side of the coin - the PAYBACK from the Republican shills -- in return for lower gas prices in October and November. The conservative oil company Republican shills were all over the blogosphere and conservative talk radio today, talking down global warming. They will continue this assault on America right up until their sorry *sses are voted out of office in November.

Honest, hard-working Americans take it in the *ss again.

"And don't even get me going about migrating disease vectors - malaria being just one of them."

Posted by: chris

Nice try Chris. Malaria is a mosquito borne disease. The essential banning of DDT based on faulty alarmist research is what keeps malaria going. Don't blame "global warming', blame Rachel Carson and those who believed her crap.

"100% of the papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals over the past 5 years have concurred that global warming due to man made emissions is occuring."

Sorry Chris, but that just won't cut it. I have learned to be skeptical of such claims, just as people have become skeptical of many things. Did any of these scientific journals note the possibilty of the solar cycle impacting temperatures? Did they tell us that the earth has always maintained the same climate throughout its long history? Did they tell us about the thermostat setting that the earth should be at? There are enough credible scientific skeptics out there too convince me to keep the powder dry on this issue.

"unprecendented frost"

Tough break (and poor spelling). Farmers for millenia have gambled that conditions would be favorable for their crops. I'm sorry you lost all those bananas, but here in the US midwest that doesn't surprise anyone.

One more thing: Would you please tell me what the temperature was in the place you are sitting 1 year ago? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1,000 years ago? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Lee, please stop sharing your love life details with us.

Give me a break, Lee. I am an agent of big oil now? I wish I were getting that big oil paycheck. I just don't believe that scientists are Gods. I have seen too many instances when something taken as a scientific fact is later shown to be completely and totally incorrect a few years later when better technology or information are available. Were you arguing the dangers of global cooling back when I was in college? What is the difference between then and now? I just wonder what the irrefutable truth will be when my kids are in college.

Wow, if the people of Tennessee had voted for Al Gore they could have saved the world.

Chris, Lee, you are absorbed by the current fashion. Remember in the '70's, the "scientific community" was convinced we were suffering from GLOBAL COOLING!

What happened to all those temperature measurements; did the scientists read them wrong? Were they in celsius instead of F?

If you read the literature out there, you will see that a number of scientists, many tops in their fields, have found numerous other potential causes of warming, including increased size of cities/land use, natural phenomenon in the earth and sea.

They have also found that in many parts of the world, if you go back 100 years, and graph temperatures, they either go down, or stay roughly the same.

The weather is a vastly complex thing. Hell, the Accuweather guy can't even predict snow in a five day forecast properly around here.

How would you believe science can predict warming/cooling in the next 10,20,1000 years given that record?

And how much do non-human causes contribute? Are they greater than human causes? If so, what do you do about that?

Read Michael Crighton's book "State of Fear." It's a novel, but the scientific references are real, all footnoted, and the author who is a unique and honest thinker himself, gives an opinion in a note at the end that does not hue to the environmentalist orthodoxy.

Chris, another fallacy you got stuck in your head, but never considered in a meaningful way (like the rest of this):

155 countries. There are no such thing. Few have signed Kyoto, and hardly any have made any attempt to control c02. India and China are full steam ahead and racing away from Kyoto like an out of control train.

Name me more than a handful of coutries that have reduced emissions meaningfully.

This is the problem with Libs and Enviros. It's not the facts or science that matter, it's a fatuous, almost religious belief in things that don't exist, or have not been proven to exist.

Another problem for you supposedly enlightened, compassionate types. What happens if you cut C02 dramatically--what effect does it have on empoverished countries? Do you know what that would do to there already fragile food distribution and economic systems?

Everything in the natural world has an effect that may be counter to what you suppose. What effect will shutting down our economic capacity with and ill-considered Kyoto type treaty have on us and the world?

No -- I don't think you are receiving a paycheck for what you write, Lorie -- but you are and your fellow Wizbang! bloggers sure go to extreme lengths to defend the oil company pals of the Republicans against the evidence of global warming.

According to that link there were 4 Wizbang! posts in the month of August debunking global warming - and a total of 42 since November 2003!!!

Shilling for big oil isn't the way to protect your children's futures, Lorie. Why not err on the side of safety and reduce greenhouse gases -- now that we know global warming is real (for whatever reason you choose to believe that we temps are rising - -you have to acknowedge that they are rising)...

but no - we're treated to another blatant oil-company *ss-kissing blog post instead?

Oh, and another thing you dingbats never considered: wonder if our thermometers and other temperature recording devices are much more accurate, and thus, recording things differently, from those that existed 30, 40, 50, 100 years ago?

There is alot more here than meets the simpleton's eye, friends.

What happened to the polar ice caps on Mars? Yeah, I know Bush did it. It's how, that I'm asking about.

John, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make re malaria. You might want to read "Global warming disease warning" at BBC news.

Re DDT - you mean it DOESN'T enter the food chain, and have long-standing ramifications? Wow - I'm clear on that now - I'll just take your word for it, then.

"On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [6]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change may be anthropogenic in nature."

I note that the naysayers cannot demonstrate that CO2 levels are not increasing. I also note that the naysayers cannot produce even ONE peer reviewed paper for every 10 that I can produce to support their position (re mine).

Honest to goodness, Lee, I had not one thought of oil or gas or anything but common sense and all those conflicting thermometers I see all the time when I posted this. I just wonder how you can be so sure that you know exactly what the temperature was a million years ago. So are those ice core plugs accurate to tenths of a degree? I guess I should be using those. I just want a little common sense to be employed.

Oh, and as for talking about my kids and how I provide for their futures, sorry but use your own kids to make your points. I am more concerned about my kids' school getting invaded, Beslan style or bombed 9/11 style. You accuse me of shilling for big oil when all I want is to know why I should trust caveman thermometers. I could accuse you of shilling for big terrorism and find plenty of your comments here to support the accusation if I chose to make it. I don't though.

I have a column due tomorrow and have to have it in tonight because I work tomorrow morning, so I won't be able to check comments again for a while. I apologize for hit-and-run commenting, but I just don't have a choice tonight.

There are enough credible scientific skeptics out there too convince me to keep the powder dry on this issue.

Name one.

Mitchell said: "155 countries. There are no such thing. Few have signed Kyoto..."

Yes, your right, I checked my facts.. 122 have signed on to Kyoto. Google it if you doubt me.

"This is the problem with Libs and Enviros. It's not the facts or science that matter..."

So, hang on, it's the facts and science that matter? Um, but every major scientific institution in the world has concluded the same thing (including the US). So if it was about science, Mitchell, you'd be arguing the opposite.

And yes Mitchell, you're right again. The only measurement scientists have taken re global warming is that of air temperature,.. and for that they use thermometers... and, of course, as we all know, mercury expands at a different rate nowadays... :D

One more thing: Would you please tell me what the temperature was in the place you are sitting 1 year ago? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1,000 years ago? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Sounds like you're saying that you don't believe germs cause diseases because you can't see them.

Oh, just checked something else.. the GMA segment was crap - the study actually concluded that

"The world is the warmest it has been in the last 12,000 years as a result of rapid warming over the past 30 years, a study has suggested."

But the authors of the study are complete lightweights: "The study by researchers from Nasa, Columbia University and the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB)...".

You can read more about this study at:

news.bbc.co.uk
" World 'warmest for 12,000 years".

Mitchel -
"155 countries. There are no such thing. Few have signed Kyoto, and hardly any have made any attempt to control c02."

I do not disagree with your sentiments, and I think GW is a big hoax, but I wanted to point out that Wikipedia(...I know) shows that "As of September 2006, 162 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, aimed at combatting global warming"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories

Rgds,

Jwehman

Oh Chris, where to begin.

How are thermometers calibrated? It's not the fact that mercury expands, it's how the expansion is measured. Again, your assertions show little regard for science, or truth. Perhaps you are too eager to get to your conclusions.

The point about Kyoto is not how many have signed it, but how many actually observe it. You've not answered the essential point I made about non-compliance and economic impacts because you know it would demolish your flimsy argument.

Not every scientific institution has signed on to your theory, and it is only a theory, that there is 1) global warming beyond the average, and 2) predominately a product of human activities. There are a number of "peer reviewed" writing on the topic I have mentioned.

If you think it's such a slam dunk, why not answer my questions, and those of a serious thinker, and scientist in his own right, such as Mr. Crighton? And, Mr. Grey, recently of the news, and a pre-eminent scientist who stands opposed to this theory without proof?

Why did your scientific community think we were suffering instead of "global cooling" just 30 years ago?

Answer these legitimate questions reasonably, and you'll have to conclude the scientific proof is not there. Maybe it will be one day; but not today.

Mitchell, I was being ironic. Do you honestly think that the science of global warming is based on the measurement of air temperature using thermometers? I suppose it would be possible for you to be less informed.. possible, but unlikely...

"Not every scientific institution has signed on to your theory." Name me one that hasn't.

Who is Mr. Grey. Give me a link, and I'll follow it.

For Mitchell:
"Not every scientific institution has signed on to your theory, and it is only a theory.."

Really???

"In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) - and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [1], and explicitly endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consensus."

You have heard of the National Academy of Sciences - advises the US government on science related matters.

And, once again...

"On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [6]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change may be anthropogenic in nature."

So who exactly is Mr. Grey? He's up against some stiff competition....

For Mitchell:

re Michael Crighton: nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcrichton.asp

Nice breakdown on his FICTIONAL work. Are you honestly trying to argue that there is a GLOBAL conpsirary amoung ALL the world's major scientific instiutes, plus the governments of 122 countries re global warming?

Wow. And what is the AIM of this vast conspiracy?

Yes, yes, I know: All your carbon are belong to us.

According to the BBC: "The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.
Ancient trees reveal most warm spells are caused by the sun Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity. "

Yeah, let's just ignore that great big bright spot in the sky and the effect it has on the planet!

Science News Magazine stated: "Even though carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have been rising constantly for the past 150 years, global average surface temperatures during that time have shown extended periods of both warming and cooling. After a period of warming early in the century, slow but steady global cooling began in the 1940s. It continued until the mid 1970s, when warming seems to have kicked in and overtaken the cooling trend."

THE EARTH IS GOING TO ICE OVER!!!! Oh, I remember it well. I'm gonna fire up the grill and let my V-8 powered 1974 Bronco just sit in the driveway and run for an hour, in honor of "science."

No one is disputing that the cycles of the sun cause warming and cooling trends.

But NO scientists are disputing the fact that CO2 levels are the highest they have been for 700 000 years. And at 1000pm CO2, the oceans were 60 feet higher than they are today.

The point re global warming is that if you put enough CO2 into the atmosphere, the AVERAGE temperature of the planet increases... so that 'cool' periods of solar activity are not as cool as they would have been - and hot periods are significantly hotter.

Last paragraph was interesting:

"The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned."

For J-Ho:

The Science article was interesting. You misrepresented the conclusions reached, though:

"Although these results show that the solar variation can be a major contributor to climate change, Stott says he expects rising anthropogenic emissions to increasingly dominate as a cause of global warming."

"The Science article was interesting. You misrepresented the conclusions reached, though:"

I'm not dismissing emissions as having an effect. I'm simply wary of the alarmists who dismiss 1) the cyclical nature of our environmental temperature [specifically ignoring a few decades of global cooling hysteria] and 2) anything besides fossil fuels as possible causes of any change [again assuming that there is no cycle to global temps].
I'd just like global warming alarmists to not be so anal as to ignore other aspects.

Don't even get me started on the amount of CO2 volcanoes spew out relative to human caused CO2 emissions.

The bronco is still running!

I am sure those caveman thermometers were accurate within hundreths of a degree though.

By: Lorie Byrd

No Lorie the cavemen didn't have thermometers. But the ocean floors foraminifera are known to accumulate Magnesium in proportion to the prevailing sea surface temperature that can be measured to an accuracy of 1°C .

This is science Lori, you might want to be careful making trite of things you know nothing about....especially when the facts show this is an issue that threatens the future of you and my two kids.

Stott L, Cannariato K, Thunell R, Haug GH, Koutavas A, Lund S (2004) Nature
431:56-59.

I just wonder what the irrefutable truth will be when my kids are in college.

Posted by: Lorie Byrd

I just wonder if you kids will forgive you for allowing this to happen. Haven't you guys learned when you ignore the experts like Bush and company did when they ignored Richard Clarke bad things happen?

For J-Ho.

It would be a LOT simpler for everyone if global warming was not occuring. Nice cheap energy from coal and gas for everyone! That is why a LOT of time and effort have been put into researching whether or not man made emissions are causing problems, and they are.

It would be cheaper and easier for everyone if they weren't, but they are.

I'm not sure how you define 'alarmists'. As I've said maybe 3 times today, EVERY major scientific institution - including the National Academy of Sciences in the US - have concurred that CO2 emissions need to be decreased due to global warming.

And yes, volcanos have been taken into account. But bringing them up simply strengthens the argument that man-made emissions need to be limited. If you have X number of volcanos spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, do you really want to add to the problem by pumping even MORE CO2 into the atmosphere.

Not doing anything is like you being in the garage with your ford bronco AND another car. The door is closed, the other car is running, carbon monoxide levels are increasing. Do you really want to fire up YOUR bronco as well?

To be honest, I'm really at a loss as to how people in the US and Australia can argue that somehow, some way, THEY know the 'TRUTH'...and that everyone else, all 150+ countries that have signed onto Kyoto, all the Scientific Advisory boards and institutions of those countries, have somehow got it wrong.

"Haven't you guys learned when you ignore the experts like Bush and company did when they ignored Richard Clarke bad things happen?"

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....(inhale)
hahahahahahahahahah - I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Oh, and republicans were angry with me and said I was obsessed with Bin Laden. hahahahaha

Wheeeeeeeee. Oh, that was funny. Yep, this is why we don't trust you and your science.

Just for that, I went and started up the Jeep Wrangler. Now I've got two spewing SUVs running in the driveway for no good reason. If this keeps up, I guess I'll have to let the hemi-powered Durango run for awhile as well.

That was funny. Thanks muirgeo!

"To be honest, I'm really at a loss as to how people in the US and Australia can argue that somehow, some way, THEY know the 'TRUTH'...and that everyone else, all 150+ countries that have signed onto Kyoto, all the Scientific Advisory boards and institutions of those countries, have somehow got it wrong."
The logic that just because x amount of countries have signed kyoto, somehow makes it right - is thinking that I'm sure your mother tried to correct in you using some type of jumping off a bridge metaphor. As if countries that don't even have plumbing somehow have figured out millions of years of geological and environmental impact.

Using your logic, we would still have slavery and legalized LSD.

BTW - be careful saying "EVERY" - it's not true (unless of course you only consider those who agree with your position as major)

This was fun. Going to bed. I'll let the SUVs just run till their tanks run dry.

Chris,

When I se these guys argue on something I know very well, the science of climate change , it reminds me never to trust anything the