What's the modivation behind "global warming"

[KlokWyze]

Well, glancing through these posts made me laugh my ass off.

Anthropogenic global warming is NOT a hypothesis in the international scientific community. IE large groups of geographically diverse people that study everything from ice cores to coral bleaching all agree that the Earth is warming @ an alarming rate almost certainly due to human activity. Evidence is mounting weekly. I would suggest reading up on shit before mouthing off about shit you don't understand.

Global warming is an established theory with NOTHING else even coming close to rivaling it's explanations of current trends on our plant's climate in the past 100 years. Most notably the past 30.

It's true that a lot of political organizations and just plain greedy fucks will try to capitalize on this information and others of the same ilk will just try to debunk it with absurd "explanations". Fact is, the Earth's climate zones are going to shift REGARDLESS of what we do @ this point. Even if if we stop all industrial and commercial greenhouse gas emissions the Earth's biosphere will still lose a significant % of all biodiversity. Of course though, we will not stop or even slow down any time soon. The effects will be more dramatic the longer effective methods of control go into effect. Unfortunately the effort human beings put into any cause is proportional to the damage it has already done. So, I guess, like someone else posted, we need to wait it out, develop the malignant tumors, THAN cure them! BRILLIANT.

 

[Jaskalas]

Global warming is an established theory with NOTHING else even coming close to rivaling it's explanations of current trends on our plant's climate in the past 100 years. Most notably the past 30.

The previous post to your own states the obvious answer to your proclamation of "NOTHING".

The simplest explanation would be that our climate is cyclical. We are still emerging from the last ice age.

 

[KlokWyze]

the previous post to your own states the obvious answer to your proclamation of "nothing".

deep

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Global warming is an established theory with NOTHING else even coming close to rivaling it's explanations of current trends on our plant's climate in the past 100 years. Most notably the past 30.

You might want to read up on GCR affects on cloud formation. It's been recently proven that GCR causes cloud formation. There's an extremely high degree of correlation between GCR flux and temperature over many thousands of years. Now it's just a matter of how much GCR forcing plays into the climate change equation. CERN should have some preliminary results from their CLOUD experiment later this year.

 

[KlokWyze]

You might want to read up on GCR affects on cloud formation. It's been recently proven that GCR causes cloud formation. There's an extremely high degree of correlation between GCR flux and temperature over many thousands of years. Now it's just a matter of how much GCR forcing plays into the climate change equation. CERN should have some preliminary results from their CLOUD experiment later this year.

Even the first article I pull up on a recent study says "probably just a red herring". I wouldn't doubt that CFC's had a far more significant cooling effect on the Earth's climate than cosmic ray fluctuations. That being said, the Earth's climate is in a rather precarious balance of warming and cooling effects. So I suppose we can just tag GCR onto the list of more shit too look @. lol.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Even the first article I pull up on a recent study says "probably just a red herring". I wouldn't doubt that CFC's had a far more significant cooling effect on the Earth's climate than cosmic ray fluctuations. That being said, the Earth's climate is in a rather precarious balance of warming and cooling effects. So I suppose we can just tag GCR onto the list of more shit too look @. lol.

I would love to know who said "probably just a red herring" and their basis for having that particular 'opinion' since everything I've seen substantiates the validity of the theory. The good thing here is that CLOUD finally got funded so we can actually know some answers soon in an area that can potentially blow current AGW theory out of the water.

CFC's may also have had an impact; though I'm not sure how you could conclude that CFCs would have more impact than GCR since we're just beginning to understand the GCR forcing mechanism. Is this purely speculation or do you have evidence?

 

[KlokWyze]

I would love to know who said "probably just a red herring" and their basis for having that particular 'opinion' since everything I've seen substantiates the validity of the theory. The good thing here is that CLOUD finally got funded so we can actually know some answers soon in an area that can potentially blow current AGW theory out of the water.

CFC's may also have had an impact; though I'm not sure how you could conclude that CFCs would have more impact than GCR since we're just beginning to understand the GCR forcing mechanism. Is this purely speculation or do you have evidence?

Speculation. I don't study this shit 24/7, BUT the book I'm currently going through did say that CFC's and other aerosols did contribute considerably to forcing (cooling).

While I think we can both agree that human understanding of how our climate works and all the processes involved is extremely limited @ best, I don't understand why you would want AGW to be "blown out of the water". Don't you simply what their to be an accurate theory reflecting accurate data?

While my understanding is pretty rudimentary, I personally think that the AGW theory will be drastically modified as our understanding becomes clearer. It's fundamentally the most sound though...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Speculation. I don't study this shit 24/7, BUT the book I'm currently going through did say that CFC's and other aerosols did contribute considerably to forcing (cooling).

While I think we can both agree that human understanding of how our climate works and all the processes involved is extremely limited @ best, I don't understand why you would want AGW to be "blown out of the water". Don't you simply what their to be an accurate theory reflecting accurate data?

While my understanding is pretty rudimentary, I personally think that the AGW theory will be drastically modified as our understanding becomes clearer. It's fundamentally the most sound though...

Yes...I want accurate data and solid science conducted with everything above board for all to see and discuss. It's a crying shame that this particular branch of science was controlled and marginalized by a handful of people at a very high level within the field. Manipulating and falsifying data, hiding methodolgy, controlling the peer review process...holy shit! Climategate was a real eyeopener in many ways.

Bottom line...I don't want the FUD...I just want good science.

 

[Ozoned]

Well, glancing through these posts made me laugh my ass off.

Anthropogenic global warming is NOT a hypothesis in the international scientific community. IE large groups of geographically diverse people that study everything from ice cores to coral bleaching all agree that the Earth is warming @ an alarming rate almost certainly due to human activity. Evidence is mounting weekly. I would suggest reading up on shit before mouthing off about shit you don't understand.

Global warming is an established theory with NOTHING else even coming close to rivaling it's explanations of current trends on our plant's climate in the past 100 years. Most notably the past 30.

It's true that a lot of political organizations and just plain greedy fucks will try to capitalize on this information and others of the same ilk will just try to debunk it with absurd "explanations". Fact is, the Earth's climate zones are going to shift REGARDLESS of what we do @ this point. Even if if we stop all industrial and commercial greenhouse gas emissions the Earth's biosphere will still lose a significant % of all biodiversity. Of course though, we will not stop or even slow down any time soon. The effects will be more dramatic the longer effective methods of control go into effect. Unfortunately the effort human beings put into any cause is proportional to the damage it has already done. So, I guess, like someone else posted, we need to wait it out, develop the malignant tumors, THAN cure them! BRILLIANT.

All of that based upon almost certainly and after 8 years of hearing that almost certainly wasn't good enough.

 

[KlokWyze]

All of that based upon almost certainly and after 8 years of hearing that almost certainly wasn't good enough.

Shrug.

I'm not some nazi advocate fear monger about climate change. If you guys don't buy massive amounts of data collected over decades all across the globe by people from every industrialized company on the face of the Earth, it's your prerogative. The fact is, is that there is no theory based on solid scientific evidence that explains the current and rapid global warming trends other than the AGW. That's all I'm saying.

@ Ozoned, 'Almost certainly' is what scientists believed the theory of relativity to be YEARS after it's introduction into the scientific community. AGW has been around since before the 1970's......

I'm not going to sit here and argue about obvious shit though. If you are looking for anything @ all possible that's wrong with an immature theory, you are going to find it. If you have something better, bring it forth. Hopefully Doc Savage's cosmic rays will save us from ourselves and they better because I doubt we could.

:biggrin:

 

[gsellis]

Shrug.

I'm not some nazi advocate fear monger about climate change. If you guys don't buy massive amounts of data collected over decades all across the globe by people from every industrialized company on the face of the Earth, it's your prerogative. The fact is, is that there is no theory based on solid scientific evidence that explains the current and rapid global warming trends other than the AGW. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not going to sit here and argue about obvious shit though. If you are looking for anything @ all possible that's wrong with an immature theory, you are going to find it. If you have something better, bring it forth. Hopefully Doc Savage's cosmic rays will save us from ourselves and they better because I doubt we could.

:biggrin:

You are right, but for the wrong reasons. We do buy the massive amounts of data collected for decades, even more than a century (and the paleo analysis of other materials). What we don't buy is the methods used to fit the data to a theory. The fitting is the fraud.

It is a fact that since 1860ish, the planet has warmed. What is not a fact is the 1860 was the mean. What is a fact was that in the middle ages (MWP), it was warmer than it was currently. And we could go on and on and on. But when analysis of the raw data sets against the temperature records show a step-wise increase in temperature that is in synch with the slope of the warming trend, something is afoot.

I used to believe too, but when McIntyre analyzed Mann's Hockey Stick, and I saw what had beed done, I became a sceptic.

 

[KlokWyze]

You are right, but for the wrong reasons. We do buy the massive amounts of data collected for decades, even more than a century (and the paleo analysis of other materials). What we don't buy is the methods used to fit the data to a theory. The fitting is the fraud.

It is a fact that since 1860ish, the planet has warmed. What is not a fact is the 1860 was the mean. What is a fact was that in the middle ages (MWP), it was warmer than it was currently. And we could go on and on and on. But when analysis of the raw data sets against the temperature records show a step-wise increase in temperature that is in synch with the slope of the warming trend, something is afoot.

I used to believe too, but when McIntyre analyzed Mann's Hockey Stick, and I saw what had beed done, I became a sceptic.

I believe that our activities increase warming, the degree to which it does is what I'm not sure about. I think the manner in which the political establishment has tried to ram it down our throat is wrong. I think any manipulation of a model around valid or invalid data is wrong.

Do you think it's wrong to say that human activity is very likely to be influencing warming trends?

 

[gsellis]

Do you think it's wrong to say that human activity is very likely to be influencing warming trends?

Yes, I do, but that is to the degree that folks are trying to imply. We can definitely see UHI. But it becomes insignificant as you get away from the urban centers. Even in the upper atmosphere. There is a small amount, but what it is is hard to say. Especially with the manipulation done with the data.

Solar activity and terrestrial orbit and inclination are the cause of warming. It is false that a greenhouse gas can increase warming (laws of thermodynamics). That is about available energy absorbation (which will be the terminus of the solar energy anyway unless it is reflected back into space - some folks do not understand that CO2 cannot create heat.) A greenhouse gas has to prevent radiative loss (which is what a greenhouse really does). There was a big stink about a year ago when it was determined that the model that calculated the insulation effect used discrete atmosphere. I think Willis Eschenbach did the analysis. It is not a blackbox. The warming model ends up implying an atmosphere of a greater depth and a 'shell'.

The models are still too new with too many unknowns. It is like economics. And unfortunately, it is like economics. For example, the Keynesian model does not describe stagflation. In modeling, that means... the model is wrong. But the Keynesian school lives. sigh.

 

[palehorse]

Well, glancing through these posts made me laugh my ass off.

Anthropogenic global warming is NOT a hypothesis in the international scientific community. IE large groups of geographically diverse people that study everything from ice cores to coral bleaching all agree that the Earth is warming @ an alarming rate almost certainly due to human activity. Evidence is mounting weekly. I would suggest reading up on shit before mouthing off about shit you don't understand.

Global warming is an established theory with NOTHING else even coming close to rivaling it's explanations of current trends on our plant's climate in the past 100 years. Most notably the past 30.

Al?! Is that you?

Wanna buy some e-offsets?

 

[monovillage]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4993/...-author-has-it-rightthe-system-is-the-problem

A new book out called "Time's Up" by Keith Farnish with a blurb by James Hansen
This is James Hansens, GISS,NASA take on this book.

"Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the 'system' is the problem. Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests - they will not look after our and the planet's well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort. --Professor James Hansen, GISS, NASA"

The author supports a variety of eco terrorism from blowing up dams to other forms of eco sabotage. You really expect reasonable people to believe Hansen and NASA/GISS when it comes to telling the truth and to be accurate with their data? What's the motivation?

 

[EXman]

Well, glancing through these posts made me laugh my ass off.

Anthropogenic global warming is NOT a hypothesis in the international scientific community. IE large groups of geographically diverse people that study everything from ice cores to coral bleaching all agree that the Earth is warming @ an alarming rate almost certainly due to human activity. Evidence is mounting weekly. I would suggest reading up on shit before mouthing off about shit you don't understand.

Global warming is an established theory with NOTHING else even coming close to rivaling it's explanations of current trends on our plant's climate in the past 100 years. Most notably the past 30.

It's true that a lot of political organizations and just plain greedy fucks will try to capitalize on this information and others of the same ilk will just try to debunk it with absurd "explanations". Fact is, the Earth's climate zones are going to shift REGARDLESS of what we do @ this point. Even if if we stop all industrial and commercial greenhouse gas emissions the Earth's biosphere will still lose a significant % of all biodiversity. Of course though, we will not stop or even slow down any time soon. The effects will be more dramatic the longer effective methods of control go into effect. Unfortunately the effort human beings put into any cause is proportional to the damage it has already done. So, I guess, like someone else posted, we need to wait it out, develop the malignant tumors, THAN cure them! BRILLIANT.

Ok what is a theory?

Is it a proven thing?

How do you prove it?

Try to debunk it yourself!

Have Pro-global warming scientitsts tried to do this?

NOPE they look for any and all evidense to get the answer that will get them more grant money. And if they do find something that isn't going to help their cause they will omit or cook the data to serve their purpose.

Do all Scientists agree on global warming? Certainly not. You implying they do doesn't make a theory fact.

Theory-1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Please stop stating that Global warming is a fact. Or the old "All but a fact" crap.

If you'd like me to go and put down the definition of fact I will.

Is Man-made Global Warming a fact?

No.

To say it is is intellectually bankrupt.

To not invite detractors and skeptics to speak at climate conferences so that a non-scientist like Al Bore and get up and put up some charts that might actually be upside down is intellectually bankrupt.

Now here are some facts:

The earth has gone through many iceages and warming trends with out mankind. Change is a constant.

Al Gores "Movie" comes with a disclaimer at the beginning in the U.K. stating that it has at least 37 factual errors.

Al Gore and his Posse stand to make very little if anything unless legislation is passed to mandate the use of his products and systems.

Many Global warming summits have been cancelled do to snow.

My old mustang is much cooler than a prius!

Ok that last one is not a fact. That is theory much like Global warming. I know it is true! I just cannot prove it!

 

[KlokWyze]

Solar activity and terrestrial orbit and inclination are the cause of warming. It is false that a greenhouse gas can increase warming (laws of thermodynamics). That is about available energy absorbation (which will be the terminus of the solar energy anyway unless it is reflected back into space - some folks do not understand that CO2 cannot create heat.)

So solar activity and terrestrial orbit is the case then. Has this really been confirmed reasonably conclusively? Got any links? Any books to recommend on it?

 

[woolfe9999]

Ok what is a theory?

Is it a proven thing?

How do you prove it?

Try to debunk it yourself!

Have Pro-global warming scientitsts tried to do this?

NOPE they look for any and all evidense to get the answer that will get them more grant money. And if they do find something that isn't going to help their cause they will omit or cook the data to serve their purpose.

Do all Scientists agree on global warming? Certainly not. You implying they do doesn't make a theory fact.

Theory-1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Please stop stating that Global warming is a fact. Or the old "All but a fact" crap.

If you'd like me to go and put down the definition of fact I will.

Is Man-made Global Warming a fact?

No.

To say it is is intellectually bankrupt.

To not invite detractors and skeptics to speak at climate conferences so that a non-scientist like Al Bore and get up and put up some charts that might actually be upside down is intellectually bankrupt.

Now here are some facts:

The earth has gone through many iceages and warming trends with out mankind. Change is a constant.

Al Gores "Movie" comes with a disclaimer at the beginning in the U.K. stating that it has at least 37 factual errors.

Al Gore and his Posse stand to make very little if anything unless legislation is passed to mandate the use of his products and systems.

Many Global warming summits have been cancelled do to snow.

My old mustang is much cooler than a prius!

Ok that last one is not a fact. That is theory much like Global warming. I know it is true! I just cannot prove it!

You seriously need a primer on what a "theory" is in the scientific world. In science, a "theory" more closely resembles a law than something like an educated guess, which is how the word is commonly used outside of science. Seriously, this is 7th grade stuff.

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

"Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law."

- wolf

 

[KlokWyze]

You seriously need a primer on what a "theory" is in the scientific world. In science, a "theory" more closely resembles a law than something like an educated guess, which is how the word is commonly used outside of science. Seriously, this is 7th grade stuff.

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

"Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law."

- wolf

I wanted to tell him, but he seemed like a troll. :biggrin:

 

[drebo]

You seriously need a primer on what a "theory" is in the scientific world. In science, a "theory" more closely resembles a law than something like an educated guess, which is how the word is commonly used outside of science. Seriously, this is 7th grade stuff.

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

"Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law."

- wolf

So scientific theory is law now? That's interesting, aside from the fact that you contradict yourself later.

Theories are postulates that have as yet not been proven. Once they are proven, they must continually be tested against any new data which may arise to maintain their validity. AGW has not done this.

The fallacy behind most of the AGW camp's stance is that AGW hasn't been disproven so it therefore must exist. This is, quite obviously, a fallacy, as it is not possible to prove a negative. Additionally, there is not sufficient evidence or data which could be used to prove that AGW does exist.

Models are models, and most of the time do not accurately represent what is coming to pass. 30 years ago, we were headed for an ice age, while temperatures steadily increased. For the last decade, we've been headed for a burned out planet, while temperatures have steadily decreased. Models should be taken for what they are: theories about what might happen based on certain specificly controlled variables. Until the events actually come to pass, those theories cannot be proven.

Given the track record of climate modelers, I'm not inclined to believe a word they've said.

 

[KlokWyze]

So scientific theory is law now? That's interesting, aside from the fact that you contradict yourself later.

Theories are postulates that have as yet not been proven. Once they are proven, they must continually be tested against any new data which may arise to maintain their validity. AGW has not done this.

The fallacy behind most of the AGW camp's stance is that AGW hasn't been disproven so it therefore must exist. This is, quite obviously, a fallacy, as it is not possible to prove a negative. Additionally, there is not sufficient evidence or data which could be used to prove that AGW does exist.

Models are models, and most of the time do not accurately represent what is coming to pass. 30 years ago, we were headed for an ice age, while temperatures steadily increased. For the last decade, we've been headed for a burned out planet, while temperatures have steadily decreased. Models should be taken for what they are: theories about what might happen based on certain specificly controlled variables. Until the events actually come to pass, those theories cannot be proven.

Given the track record of climate modelers, I'm not inclined to believe a word they've said.

His point is, is that 'scientific theories' are not theories under the Webster dictionary definition.

Isn't the 'Theory of Relativity' a scientific theory? Isn't it accepted as essentially fact in the scientific community?

I generally agree with all your sentiment, AGW is immature and therefore can't explain the past recent warming trends with an extremely high amount of accuracy.

 

[drebo]

His point is, is that 'scientific theories' are not theories under the Webster dictionary definition.

Isn't the 'Theory of Relativity' a scientific theory? Isn't it accepted as essentially fact in the scientific community?

I generally agree with all your sentiment, AGW is immature and therefore can't explain the past recent warming trends with an extremely high amount of accuracy.

Relativity's probably a bad example, because they're not relying on data from past events and trying to make it conform to what they think the future will bring. Relativity can be somewhat studied to a large extent and what we've found in nature validates the theory. The same cannot be said of AGW.

I don't pretend to be an expert of either, but I do know that spending trillions of dollars on something we don't understand and aren't really making an effort to try to understand is not a good idea.

I'm not against more environmentally friendly energy production or more efficiency in general. My concern is forcing products to market which are not yet economically viable. If we want to move away from coal electricity generation to a long-term, environmentally-friendly alternative, the Government needs to strip down the permit process for nuclear and offer inscentives for nuclear power production. Nuclear is the long-term alternative to coal. Solar, and to a lesser extent wind, can only supplement.

Again, the majority of "environmentalists" are not calling for a shift to cleaner energy, they're calling for a reduction in energy consumption...that's just not going to happen. A society's progress and prosperity is directly proportional to its energy consumption. We need more energy, and nuclear is the only logical goal.

As far as greenhouse gasses go, carbon isn't the biggest offender and our shifts towards ethanol are misguided at best. Ethanol is no cleaner-burning than gasoline as far as greenhouse gasses go, and it's much less efficient. Unless it's significantly cheaper (and we all know that's not going to happen), it's not economically viable, and government subsidies are always counter-productive (they stifle research into real alternatives). I don't know what the next-generation fuel for motor vehicles will be, but ethanol shouldn't be it. Additionally, the argument that we need ethanol to be "energy-independent" is bupkiss, too. We have more than enough oil and shale oil to last us the next 100 years, as well as allow us to become a large exporter of oil. Yet we're not allowed to drill it.

I don't have all the answers, but blindly spending money on a "solution" to a "problem" that probably doesn't even exist in the first place is not a good idea.

 

[KlokWyze]

Relativity's probably a bad example, because they're not relying on data from past events and trying to make it conform to what they think the future will bring. Relativity can be somewhat studied to a large extent and what we've found in nature validates the theory. The same cannot be said of AGW.

I don't pretend to be an expert of either, but I do know that spending trillions of dollars on something we don't understand and aren't really making an effort to try to understand is not a good idea.

I'm not against more environmentally friendly energy production or more efficiency in general. My concern is forcing products to market which are not yet economically viable. If we want to move away from coal electricity generation to a long-term, environmentally-friendly alternative, the Government needs to strip down the permit process for nuclear and offer inscentives for nuclear power production. Nuclear is the long-term alternative to coal. Solar, and to a lesser extent wind, can only supplement.

Again, the majority of "environmentalists" are not calling for a shift to cleaner energy, they're calling for a reduction in energy consumption...that's just not going to happen. A society's progress and prosperity is directly proportional to its energy consumption. We need more energy, and nuclear is the only logical goal.

As far as greenhouse gasses go, carbon isn't the biggest offender and our shifts towards ethanol are misguided at best. Ethanol is no cleaner-burning than gasoline as far as greenhouse gasses go, and it's much less efficient. Unless it's significantly cheaper (and we all know that's not going to happen), it's not economically viable, and government subsidies are always counter-productive (they stifle research into real alternatives). I don't know what the next-generation fuel for motor vehicles will be, but ethanol shouldn't be it. Additionally, the argument that we need ethanol to be "energy-independent" is bupkiss, too. We have more than enough oil and shale oil to last us the next 100 years, as well as allow us to become a large exporter of oil. Yet we're not allowed to drill it.

I don't have all the answers, but blindly spending money on a "solution" to a "problem" that probably doesn't even exist in the first place is not a good idea.

Yeah, I agree with everything you say, but I still think that the majority of scientists that study climate do believe that human activity is significantly contributing to GW. I do think tons of money should be spent. On research so we can figure the best possible solution, if any, to any bad effects.

That you mention coal burning as a contributor to GW raises a point to me. I've read that the clearing of forests, rainforests, vegetation, etc. has contributed more carbon dioxide and decreased the albedo of the Earth more than any other human activity, or @ least those 2 things has contributed greatly to AGW.

Seriously... I don't think anybody has really addressed my main point. I believe that the majority of the people that study coral reefs, ice cores, stalagmite oxidation, historical rainfall patterns, , etc. (this is a very long etc) are all inclined to say that human activity considerably effects GW. Clearly it's to early to say how and to what extent, why AGW receives so much, sometimes bitter, opposition.

I also think that nuclear energy solutions haven't been developed and deployed nearly as much as they should have. Same goes for solar which has amazing potential.

 

[IGBT]

it's a rallying point for the religious left eco-KOOKS.

 

[monovillage]

If your main point is accurate, then how can you explain the medieval warm period when temperatures were higher then they are now ?

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

About the accuracy of current temperatures.

http://news.wooeb.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=161938&ret=AccountSummary.aspx