<p>I don’t know enough to make an informed decision re: global warming, so I’ve never adopted an opinion. But from what little I do understand, isn’t one of the problems with the discussion that the overall global warming can result in colder temperatures in some places? For instance, as I understand it, one of the effects of global warming would be the slowing of the Gulf stream, which would result in England’s climate becoming colder, and more like northern Canada. It seems that it might have made the discussion less subject to misunderstanding if people had used the term “climate change”.</p>
<p>Well, actually, they do use that term. BAsically, the overall climate is warming from anthropogenic causes, but that may, as you say, manifest differently in different places, such as because of the effects it has on the world’s ocean current system.</p>
<p>overall, Hayden, that you can’t make an “informed decision” is not because it isn’t a scienetifically settled issue, but because the campaign to create a controversy in the popular press, when it doesn’t exist scientifically, is a success.</p>
<p>The supposition that all educated climate scientists agree that humans contribute significantly to global warming is false. Furthermore, what percentage of relevantly educated engineers (as opposed to scientists) believe that (1) human’s contributions to global warming is significant, (2) the current trend in global warming is necessarily detrimental, and (3) that we can effectively reverse such “effects” using some economically viable methods?</p>
<p>Either climate scientists realized when they were first formulating their “global warming” theories that it is only valid for extremely long time scales and it would likely have no effect within the next decade (in which case they were deceitfully hiding this information while popularizing the theory) or they are only now adjusting their models to account for this concept (in which case they were incompetent when pressing for imminent actions based on such lousy models, and are now forced to “tweak” their “models”). When I was a faculty member or a TA, I always took off many more points on a homework assignment when someone obtained the right answer using the wrong method (because a student could obtain the correct answer either from the book or from a friend) than if he used the right approach and made simple errors to end up with an incorrect result. In my opinion, these scientists decided to “kluge” their lousy theory rather than figure out what was really wrong with it. That is not what we call science. That is “plug and chug” with “fudge factors.” Anyone who proposes spending trillions of dollars based on such hogwash disguised as “science” has no concept of how real science is supposed to work.</p>
<p>My thoughts exactly pafather. They constantly “adjust” their predictions to include ==oh yeah, we meant that might happen too. Cooler–sure. Stormier–of course. Less stormy, obviously. Warmer–that’s exactly what we were saying the first time. Meanwhile the planet has been going through warming and cooling cycles all by itself since time began.</p>
<p>Its been mightily cool here in the PNW this year. </p>
<p>Even the largest company in this earth has changed its tune towards the affect of greenhouse gases and human’s contribution on the climate. Likewise W’s administration has effectively conceded the debate. Sources can be found by googling your favorite oil company’s website and this Administration.</p>
<p>Anybody want to buy a slightly used contractor’s pickup or a supersized SUV. Need to pay tuition. I am “only” selling because low milage that these vehicles get and the lack of work.</p>
<p>Hayden, </p>
<p>The cooling of Europe as a result of “global warming” is just yet another myth that the alarmists like to propogate:
[The</a> Gulf Stream Myth](<a href=“http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/]The”>The Gulf Stream Myth)</p>
<p>no, I’m an international arms merchant and part-time PR agent for the pharmaceutical industry.</p>
<p>Does this mean when global cooling begins we’ll be able to drill for oil again? So we can heat the planet back up!</p>
<p>I’d like to thank all the blog-echos for faithfully repeating the deniers mantra, carefully following the playbook laid down by the tobacco companies in their rear-guard defense:</p>
<p>1) It’s not true.
2) Less than 100% of the scientists who study it agree completely, so it’s still just as reasonable to deny it as deal with it.
3) We’re not causing it.
4) It’s not so bad, anyway!</p>
<p>But here’s the problem: The science is sound. There is a clear consensus among the scientists who actually understand the science (a group which does not include any CC posters) that the model is basically correct, and the data supports it. </p>
<p>That’s why the deniers have to resort to the kind of tactics Barrons reposts so faithfully: misrepresenting the actual content and conclusions of studies which actually support the climate change consensus, lying about which scientists actually question the theory, and crowing over localized, short-term phenomena which don’t actually refute the overall change. </p>
<p>By the way - how many of you bothered to follow FF’s link and see that the author of the article he cited affirms global warming theory?
</p>
<p>It’s actually kind of sad. Outside the mutually-affirming group of crackpots, nobody who has actually been paying attention is questioning the fact of anthropogenic climate change anymore. Even the oil companies are dealing with reality these days. The deniers are really limited to an odd group of sad, strange, mostly older men seeking glory by making brave and defiant pronouncements for which they have no scientific support. It’s really down to the flat-earthers now.</p>
<p>“But here’s the problem: The science is sound”</p>
<p>But they will also say that climate science is very complicated and can be affected by things outside of the control of man. For example, were there to be a large volcanic eruption, the entire research model would change and that’s not necessarily a predictable event.</p>
<p>So, Hubris (apt name - congratulations!) do you want to share with us your scientific qualifications to opine on the validity of anthropogenic climate change science?</p>
<p>Zoos - that’s true. And we could all be wiped out like the dinosaurs by a meteor strike, or killed off by a new flu strain, or something. But I still think it’s wisest to plan for the future we can predict. And unless one of those unpredictable things happen, following the urgings of the science-deniers will make the future bleaker than it has to be for our children and grandchildren. (Not so much for us - parents of college-aged children probably won’t live long enough to experience more than a taste of what is likely to come.)</p>
<p>“Zoos - that’s true. And we could all be wiped out like the dinosaurs by a meteor strike, or killed off by a new flu strain, or something. But I still think it’s wisest to plan for the future we can predict.”</p>
<p>The difference is that there are often weather-related events that impact climate.</p>
<p>I can accept that the Earth is warming and/or cooling. But whining, finger pointing, posturing and patronizing the opposition is only a continuation of red state/blue state politics. My concern is that politicians and “progressives” will want to legislate policies that will “correct” whatever is believed to be the problem.</p>
<p>That’s how we end up with ill-considered things like 55 MPH speed limits, biofuels that contribute to starvation, bans on incandescent bulbs, gas tax holidays and other such folly. Just window dressing feel-good moves for the Cassandras of the world.</p>
<p>There are better reasons than global warming to develop alternatives to oil as a major energy source. It would be better to fund cold fusion than line the pockets of the Iowa caucus voters(ha.) But I guess there are more voters in Iowa than there are scientists and engineers working on these issues.</p>
<p>Call me a conservative, but nobody in politics today is able to predict the unintended consequences of their actions.( This goes for health care too.) The shrill calls for immediate action just grate on me. I remember the 70’s all too well.</p>
<p>55 MPH speed limits–save lives, do cut down on greenhouse gas emissions (slightly) and do cut oil dependence on other countries (I’m guessing that’s one of your “better reason” to cut oil as a major energy source.)</p>
<p>Biofuels–many environmentalists are fervently against these (unless we’re talking reusing food oils, etc). They are the product of Big Agro companies and the politicians they own.</p>
<p>BAns on incandescent bulbs–not widespread, but hardly something to tear one’s hair out about. </p>
<p>Gas tax holiday–this one on your list especially puzzles me. It’s the opposite of what anyone concerned with climate change would want. It will lead to more gas usage, obviously, and seems to be the product of pandering for votes, not reasoned policy.</p>
<p>The 55 mph speed limit also wasted millions of hours of peoples’ time for marginal results. On interstates accidents are so relatively few that the lower limit had hardly any imapct. Maybe a tiny state like NJ can get along OK with a lower limit as you can’t drive much more than 3 hours anywhere in the state. Out west of the Delaware things get much more wide open and spending an extra three hours driving across Texas is not efficient or fun.</p>
<p>And Hubris, if I thought that science actually knows 25% of what creates long term climate changes I’d have more faith in their conclusions. They don’t. They have just begun to scratch the surface. The so-called science has only been around for about 30 years.</p>
<p>Time=money. Look it up.</p>
<p>I was using the 55 mph speed limit as an example of knee jerk but ineffective use of the nanny state to affect individual behavior rather than promoting long term strategies that might really make a difference. Like nuclear power. Or coming up with a way to use coal that is eco friendly since we have so much of the stuff.</p>
<p>I like to joke that I would put a nuclear reactor in my crawl space if I had to to insure the continuous flow of power. I think Toshiba might have such a model.</p>
<p>Are those reactors squirrel-proof?</p>
<p>Not sure about the squirrrels but here it is:</p>
<p>[Toshiba’s</a> building a “Micro Nuclear” reactor for your garage? - Engadget](<a href=“http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/19/toshibas-building-a-micro-nuclear-reactor-for-your-garage/]Toshiba’s”>Toshiba's building a "Micro Nuclear" reactor for your garage?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are 0 for 3 here. The 55 MPH speed limit policy did not save lives, did not cut down on emissions, and did not reduce oil consumption. The only major effect was providing a lucrative income stream for law enforcement agencies. The policy was a complete failure in every way.</p>