2007-world record DROP in temps.

<p>I didn’t say “pollution in the U.S.” We passed laws, the air IS cleaner and so are the rivers. But China and India are definitely dirtier. I’m not going to bother googling to find the data. Even the mainstream media reports on the mess in the Yangtze River and the Ganges, and the air pollution in industrial areas of China, and in Mexico City. </p>

<p>So you’re saying we CAN go on polluting the oceans indefinitely? The MSM has also reported on a growing mass of trash in the South Pacific…an island, if you will, of stuff that is indigestible to the ocean and to waterfowl.</p>

<p>And the fact that we are warned against eating too much of certain fish because of mercury contamination is something that was only a horrifying warning 40 years ago…unthinkable. I guess now we’re used to the idea.</p>

<p>

You’ve got to love the no-doubt unintentional irony of a statement like this. The data shows that mankind is the problem (or at least a significant part of the problem.) But that doesn’t support the political cause of the whiny “You’re just saying that to be mean!” contingent. So you get all kinds of fringe theories based on incomplete understanding of the science, coupled with pugnacious and sanctimonious accusations leveled at anyone who challenges the “Anyone who says we should change the way we’re doing things right now is a threat!” mindset.</p>

<p>But you gotta love someone who arrives after the science has been done to accuse the scientists of a political agenda. The perfect all-purpose, substance-free rebuttal to anything you (a) don’t like, and (b) don’t really understand.</p>

<p>Sorry, but that is debatable. Many studies show man’s contribution to CO2 greenhouse emissions is only about 0.28%. If you take water vapor out of the equation, it’s about 5.53%.</p>

<p>The point is, with every stat that one person shows claiming we are so bad and the cause of all the planet’s problems; there also stats that show the opposite.</p>

<p>As I’ve said in many other posts, I don’t think it’s important who or what is at fault. If we were really concerned, we should go at it strictly on economic and technological principles. Mainly; find alternative means of energy to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It will help us economically and our technologies can take advantage better of the energy. It will just so happen to reduce our use and therefor our contribution to emission problems. If we ARE a major problem; then this will help us. If we aren’t a major problem, it won’t make a difference.</p>

<p>Basically; implement more nuclear, solar, hydro, wind, and other forms of energy because it’s cheaper, more efficient, better for the economy, and better for air/water/land pollutants. The greenhouse gases and other global warming issues will take care of themselves. IF we are of significant cause.</p>

<p>if CO2 contributes to warming, how come Mars has plenty more than the earth, but yet Mars is now cooling?</p>

<p>“But you gotta love someone who arrives after the science has been done to accuse the scientists of a political agenda.”</p>

<p>This is typical Al Gore, we-know-everything-there-is-to-know rhetoric.</p>

<p>Of course it conveniently overlooks the fact that many scientists never got on the GW bandwagon and that also many early proponents are now jumping off:</p>

<p>

[.:</a> U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.](<a href=“U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works”>U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works)</p>

<p>And the conversions continue:</p>

<p>

[Forget</a> global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age](<a href=“http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289]Forget”>Home | The National Post Home Page | National Post)</p>

<p>I love how those who are solidly in the man-made global warming camp love to deride those who are not as anti-science “flat-earthers”. It would seem that those who a) are not the least knowledgeable in the science and b) religiously ignore the science that contradicts their politicized views are closer to the flat earthers.</p>

<p>Can we agree that even if WE are not the cause of global warming, even that the earth may be cooling, we ARE the cause of all the pollution on earth? Unless you consider guano to be a major pollutant.</p>

<p>We, and not the bonobos, elephants, wolves, or whales.</p>

<p>bluebayou–maybe if Mars had an atmosphere greater than 1% of the earth’s, and if it had an ocean, and forests, and convection currents, you could make a valid comparison.</p>

<p>Mommusic, in many cases environment controls were the last straw for manufacturing operations in the US. If you want to make a significant contribution to reducing pollution on a global basis, you need to stop buying products made in China, Mexico and other countries with minimal environmental controls. I am not sure what you are going to do about buying clothing or the cloth to make your own clothing. Most of the depleted dyes are just being dumped.</p>

<p>Yes, there is no doubt that humans are responsible for pollution. However, a valid case can be made that pollution and global warming are orthogonal with each other in terms of how humanity deals with them - both in terms of diversion of resources away from pollution to fight GW and also, technologies used to fight global warming that contribute to pollution. </p>

<p>In addition, other than from the perspective of creating a level economic playing field in a global economy, is it not presumptuous of American to impose their perspective of the environment on countries on the other side of the world?</p>

<p>[Solar</a> Activity and Climate](<a href=“http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html]Solar”>http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html)</p>

<p>Fundingfather, with all due respect: You don’t understand the science. You’re not “more knowledgeable in the science” in any significant way than anyone else here on CC. You just know the answer you want to hear. Pretending to understand science when your only basis is plausible sounding “pop-science” clips served up to you with the rest of your blog’s agendas isn’t a long way from believing that the earth is flat - you’ve got about the same scientific basis for adopting your position. You’re not as obvious about it as Bluebayou (clue: Earth isn’t Mars. More ways than one.) But you guys arrogantly and contemptuousy trot out the same handful of scientists who have quibbles with various details of the science - ignoring the vastly larger number whose work has contributed to the overwhelming consensus - and repeat your blog’s insistence that if you can find even one scientist who has an issue with any aspect of the consensus view that means that acting on the consensus is unwarranted.</p>

<p>Regarding too much CO2 in the air (assuming there’s ‘too much’), maybe science and technology can help solve the problem by converting it back to fuel -

[Los</a> Alamos National Laboratory (LANL): Synthetic Fuel Concept to Steal CO2 From Air](<a href=“http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554]Los”>http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554)</p>

<p>

You’ll be proud to know that when I needed a pile of new workout socks I searched for socks ‘not made in China’ and found some New Balance socks with ‘Made in USA’ labeled on them. I was actually surprised to be able to find any.</p>

<p>Kluge; you points are well taken. Unfortunately, the group of scientists claiming mankind is to blame for all the climate problems don’t have much more proof than the other side. Just because some people consider them “experts” but don’t consider other scientists findings as “expert” doesn’t make them any more right. The analogy of the earth being flat is a good analogy. For the longest time, the majority of mankind; including science considered everything revolving around the earth. Just because the majority believe in something doesn’t mean it’s correct. I don’t see enough proof to believe that mankind is the cause to global warming or climate change. No more so than it being a natural occurrence that has happened many times before.</p>

<p>

How do you know that? Seriously - you don’t understand the science either. Your opinion as to the quality of the proof is entirely based on trusting the people who tell you the answer you’ve aligned yourself with.</p>

<p>I don’t claim to understand the science any more than the rest of you. I’ve got the “pop-science” pro and con versions, but I’d have to actually understand the science at far more significant level to be able to form a scientifically significant opinion. And the same is true for you.</p>

<p>I am aware the the consensus view is held by far more scientists than the naysayers view. I also know that the consensus view is supported by, and utililzed in, numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles - and the naysayers view isn’t. The only objective criteria I can bring to bear on this question is a reasoned assessment of the number, nature, and accomplishments of the scientists involved. In my opinion people who insist that a contrary view is scientifically justified are simply exercising their bias in the guise of science that they only pretend to understand, generally coupled with a goofy tin-foil hat level conspiracy theory to explain why so many scientists seem to agree on the inconvenient version.</p>

<p>kluge:</p>

<p>could it just be that the peer reviewers are part of the flat-earth society? :)</p>

<p>I would opine that even Oil Barrons would agree that the earth’s temperatures have increased over the last generation. Moreover, plenty of peer reviewed studies document that fact and the correlation with the increase in green house gasses (more of which occur in Mars’s atmosphere, btw). But the 100 billion+ dollar question is when does correlation become causation?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.</p>

<p>Kluge; I think you missed my point. When I make a comment such as I don’t believe that the scientists have that much proof; your response is; </p>

<p>“How do you know that? Seriously - you don’t understand the science either. Your opinion as to the quality of the proof is entirely based on trusting the people who tell you the answer you’ve aligned yourself with.”</p>

<p>I agree with you. My point however is; your opinion and those who’s are similar, are exactly the same. You admit that you don’t know the science any better than the rest of us. So, if it’s POSSIBLE that those who share the belief that mankind ISN’T such a threat to climate change, and that they are being DUPED; then isn’t it also possible that those who share the belief that mankind is significantly to blame, might also be being duped?</p>

<p>In other words, why are “Your” experts automatically right and “My” experts automatically wrong?</p>

<p>Bluebayou, there’s actually a thoroughly articulated scientific theory which explains how a rise in greenhouse gases causes a rise in temperature - which, as good theories can, has been tested against actual data to see if the rise predicted by a given increase in greenhouse gases in historical time periods actually occurred, with care to try to isolate causation from external sources. I can’t explain the details or personally vouch for the results, but the work is being done. There has been, appropriately, a lot of scientific discussion and debate on the topic. Scientists working in the field actually have a lot of interest in details like that. It’s only the 30,000 ft. “pop science” analysts who are unaware of the actual level of scientific research in the area of causation who are mystified by the question you posit. As I’ve noted before, the current level of scientific understanding of the causal relationship between greenhouse gases and climate change today appears to be significantly more advanced than our understanding of the causal relationship between smoking and cancer was when we first mandated warning labels on cigarette packages and began outlawing smoking in public places. Of course, the tobacco industry then used the same type of arguments and tactics that Barrons and Fundingfather’s blogs use today about climate change. Some things never change.</p>

<p>Washdad: What part of “I don’t claim to understand the science any more than the rest of you” do you not understand?</p>

<p>Christcorp - That is the kind of argument I’d expect a little kid to make. Are you actually unable to distinguish between competing claims based on objective criteria regarding the qualifications of the proponents of each position? I mean, there’s still a guy somewhere who believes that the word is flat. How can you say he is “automatically wrong?” The objective basis for concluding that the overwhelming majority of scientists working in the field and publishing peer-reviewed scientific articles on topic are probably right, and the handful of guys who take potshots at various details of the science are probably either wrong or right only on marginal issues is simple and rational, and doesn’t rely on an ideological predisposition to prefer one answer over another. I’d prefer to have climate change science be wrong. It would make my life easier and my kids’ future more optimistic. I just can’t justify whistling past the graveyard in the face of the things I can objectively assess.</p>

<p>And Kluge; that is exactly the response I thought you would give. You believe that the proof and the scientists who believe such are the vast majority. That isn’t necessarily true. There are definitely some positions that you have taken that I’ve respected and many that I have even agreed with. This just isn’t one of them. It’s too narrow minded for me. Nothing is that absolute in life and this is no different.</p>

<p>But for me, I don’t need to debate this any further. Because as I said earlier, I don’t think that it is the issue we should be worrying about. It isn’t necessary. If we would take all the money being wasted on campaigning for these environmental issues, and instead put it all towards alternative energy research, then mankind’s contribution toward greenhouse gases and global warming would be a moot point. If we found alternative forms of energy because it was cheaper; because it was cleaner for the air/water/land; because it would improve our economy; and because it is technologically more friendly; then we wouldn’t be debating mankind’s contribution. We could reduce our use and dependency on fossil fuels easily by 60%. That is the amount used to produce electricity and run our industrial infrastructure. </p>

<p>But no; instead we have to use all that money for people to fight the cause. For the government to PRETEND they care by forcing higher EPA standards. In fact, all they are doing is allowing time for companies to gain as much from the status quo until they are forced by supply and demand to change energy paths. The sad part is that for many of the alarmists, it isn’t even about the planet. For many, it’s fighting the cause. They care more about trying to be right about the cause than they do about the planet. On other topics, they brag about how great France and the rest of Europe is; yet they fight again putting in more nuclear power plants. Even though France and Europe have continued to go that direction in full force. </p>

<p>If you really care about mankind’s contribution to global warming and all that, then push for more nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro. Get away from ANYTHING that burns. That includes Bio-fuels like ethanol which are just as bad for the environment as gasoline and diesel are. If you really care, tell the government to back the hell out of our lives, and allow technologies like the “Loremo” [Loremo:</a> The ‘Low Resistance Mobile’ - MSN Autos](<a href=“http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=457882]Loremo:”>http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=457882) to enter the United States. A diesel car, very good looking, that gets up to 150 miles per gallon. If you would fight for the economic and technological advantages of alternative energy, then mankind’s contribution to greenhouse gases wouldn’t be an issue.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>With that I disagree. </p>

<p>As you note, “there’s actually a thoroughly articulated scientific theory…has been tested against actual data…” but, IMO, the data is different. On one hand, we had plenty of dead smokers. On the other, we have theoretical testing – models essentially – change the assumptions a bit, and stuff like ethanol goes from an environment saver to an environment user. hmmmmm</p>

<p>[Global</a> Warming:A Chilling Perspective](<a href=“http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html]Global”>Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective)</p>