http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml http://www.scientistsandengineersforchange.org/integrity.php I could go on, but where would it end? I won't trouble you with too much redundancy.
I took your point to be that the fact that the media had hyped the concept of global cooling back in the 70's that global warming was just as speculative now in '06. The purpose of the link I provided was to show a) that scientists didn't believe in the global cooling thesis back in the 70s and b) that the media took the issue out of context at that time. My point is that we need to focus on the science of the issue and not the politics or media hype. If I misunderstood you please explain so I can either apologize or respond properly.
"Basically we all understand logic, consciousness and rationality. Do we need to rely on someone else telling us to do what's right or wrong? Just simply think of how many tons of rubbish we produce daily on our living world."
Wiki is not authentic on the issue of scientists not believing in global cooling at the time. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age.
OK, At least we are on the same page as to what we are discussing. We just disagree about sources for our respective arguments. Try these links: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ Personally, I think the Wiki entry is well sourced and footnoted. Can you link to something that shows why you think it's not accurate -- i.e. a contrary point of view? Neither of the citations you quoted can be linked directly.
I observe this for what it is - an issue largely pushed by the Democrats. But, that doesn't mean I won't examine the issue. So now, I'll dust off the ol' soapbox, and let you climb on up there. Let's assume you're right, global warming is here now. It's real, and serious. How has this new reality affected your life?
The movie is almost completely correct, at least for a general audience. I am a scientist (not in climate), and happen to have first-hand scientific contacts at the highest levels in major research institutes and universities in oceanography and climate. The issue is not any specific datum or study or picture but the totality of all of them. There have been enormous numbers of sophisticated analyses---all subject to significant and rigorous review and questioning. The idea that a scientific community is "brainwashed" into some crusade is completely untrue. Manyclaims and models are probed heavily. The final scientific message is simple: there is no other explanation for the observed totality of data other than human induced greenhouse gas emissions, and the contribution of those human effects is substantial. If you want a more careful and scientifically vetted report, see the whole National Academy of Sciences report. In particular the release by the Republican senatorial staff is itself misleading propaganda. Quoting directly from a National Academy briefing: "It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies. Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified." There is a physical observational result which is conclusive. In particular, the in-situ concentration of greenhouse gases high in the atmosphere (where they have their effect) has been measured directly by physical instruments for at least 30-40 years (since beginning of aeronautics/space) and similarly the infrared radiation balance has been directly measured by various satellites and balloon-based instruments for this time as well. In sum: the concentration of greenhouse gases has been increasing, and with that more infrared radiation (heat) has been measured to be scattered back down to Earth, exactly as predicted. This is now observed fact. It is henceforth impossible by the laws of physics for the climate to NOT change. The scientific questions remains where and how. but in the overwhelming mainstream scientific community the question of 'if' is settled. There is another logical fallacy brought up many times by the deniers, namely the presence of climate fluctuations in the historical record. Those are of course acknoweldged and are critical to climate physics and modeling. However, in the past centuries when climate changed there was also then a specific physical cause. If we had scientific knowledge and instrumentation then, we would have figured out why. The existence of some mechanisms then does not mean that those same mechanisms explain ALL observed climate facts now. That "null hypothesis" is exactly what is tested, and it is rejected because those mechanisms do not explain current climate unless you also include human-induced greenhouse gases.
That seems straight-forward enough. It's like the bird flu. It might be a major issue. It might not. But it doesn't pay to sit around and say it doesn't exist and don't worry about it. It's not like you can solve global warming in a week with an antibiotic after all. As to the impact on me, I doubt it's an issue for which my generation (mid 40s) will feel a serious impact -- unless it turns out that the increased intensity of hurricanes is related. That doesn't mean we should ignore it though -- like the ongoing fantasies in Washington regarding social security and medicare liabilities. Just my $.02.
"The difference between a statesman and a politician? A statesman would welcome and resolve a real issue raised by his opponents through providing better solutions than his opponents could possibly provide."