There are a number of separate questions here that liberals, global socialists and the environmentalist zealot crowd like to lump together. Let's look at them. 1. Is global warming taking place? The issue here seems to be inconsistencies in ground temps and those taken from satellites. 2. Assuming there is warming, are human activities causing it? This is where the problems with the global warming models begin to appear. Apparently they do not even explain past temp changes. Would you trade using a model that could not make a profit on historical data? The standard reply is that there is a consensus of scientists. Science is not determined by consensus, but by empirical data and experiments that can be replicated by others. There is also a hypothesis that to the extent there is warming, it is more attributable to sun spot activity than anything we are doing. 3. Assuming we are causing some climate change, can we do anything to stop or reverse it? Here again we come up against the issue of unreliable models. How do the models distinguish between CO2 expelled by internal combustion engines and that expelled by billions of humans every breath? How about volcanoes? If population growth and volcanoes overwhelm conservation efforts, would we be ruining our economies for nothing? 4. Should we even attempt to alter climate change? The earth's history has involved climate changes that dwarf those predicted by even the most apocalyptic models. Aren't we being a tiny bit arrogant to think that our present climate is some perfect state that we must take draconian measures to preserve? The models predict that most of the warming would take place in arctic areas. Some warming of those areas might be beneficial and turn them from wastelands into productive areas that could support population growth. 5. Assuming all the warnings our accurate, what is the optimum response? Liberals act like Kyoto was the answer. Even the most zealous scientists however agree that it would have had largely symbolic effects. Kyoto was merely the latest attempt by the international left to rein in the US economy and make the world "fairer" and more "equitable." Other wise, why were devloping ocuntries, which are bigger polluters than the US, excluded? It is hard to take scientists seriously when we see them willfully distort data and conclusions, put politics ahead of credibility and engage in scare tactics with no basis in fact. We are sophisticated enough now to appreciate the PR tactics of the left: create a "crisis" out of thin air, then demand immediate policy changes without much debate to address the "crisis." After all, as Clinton loved to say, "it's for the children." The best evidence that this is exactly the game that is being played is the reaction to honest criticism and skepticism, which is what science is supposed to encourage. Instead, we get attacks that only a moron doesn't buy into the "consensus" and that we are destroying the planet, etc. When the Democrats had an opportunity to implement the Kyoto Protocol, what did they do? Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for confirmation and the Senate voted something like 97-0 that they wouldn't accept it. The same Senators who voted against it now want to castigate Bush for destroying the planet. This is politics, not science.
I think Bush presented the regressive position well, when he admitted that of course our pollution of the atmosphere has consequences, but the economic cost was too great to deal with it. The bottom line is money, and the regressives put unbridled capitalism and materialism above mother earth or long term consequences to the health of the planet and ecosystems. Many evangelicals don't give a shit about the earth, as they think they are headed to heaven, so why not destroy it while they are waiting for the rapture to come and take them away.... "We are sophisticated enough now to appreciate the PR tactics of the left: create a "crisis" out of thin air.." Ahhhh, sort of like the social security crisis, the crisis of Saddam and WMD, etc.
It was interesting that the first link you give turns out to be a description of paleo scientific methods. For example, examining tree rings. Quoting from your first link: Tree Rings "Of great interest is the observation that trees growing at extremely high latitudes (inside of the arctic and antarctic circles) show not only growth rings (as would be expected - at high latitudes one would expect daylength to produce a marked growing season) but thick growth rings that indicate rapid growth for at least part of the year. This suggests that the high latitude climate at this time was much more temperate than it is at the present time, and that, by extension, global climates were much warmer overall from pole to pole than they are today." full as you pointed out to me: http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/J_B_Bennington/137notes/paleoclimatology.html Thanks for finding a link that seems to show it was hotter back then. A recent study produces this graph, also based on the tree ring studies you linked me to: DS
Thanks for your good and IMO accurate summary of the issues. Kyoto is IMO is politics posing as science. So, who are the winners? Certainly not the climate, Even the most fervent supporters of Kyoto say it will have a negligible impact on climate. China and India who are exempt from it. So, while the other countries invest and very likely suffer economic setbacks to comply, China and India should see oil prices decline as demand is reduced in the other nations. As if they did not have enough advantages already. DS
The second link you gave describes the "Day After Tomorrow" scenario of a shift in the thermohaline circulation caused by global warming leading to an ice age. Certainly the science for this is little understood. "Recent studies, published in the March 2005 issue of SCIENCE puts the scenario in doubt.Scientists from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) have provided new evidence that ocean circulation changes lagged behind, and were not the cause of, major climate changes at the beginning and end of the last ice age (short intervals known as glacial boundaries), according to a study published in the March 25, 2005 issue of Science magazine. " Full at: http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/story04-07-05.html The Lamont-Doherty Earth Science INstitute is located at Columbia Universty in New York. It did make for a good escapists movie and certainly more study is needed, but IMO we are far from having compelling evidence that supports the "Day After Tomorrow" scenaril while OTO it certainly has not been refuted. DS
Oops, my bad. Apparently they have these conferences at UT periodically and I got a link to an old article. I couldn't find a news article about the most recent conference, but it was essentially the same thing. I still don't understand how anyone can say the "vast majority" of scientists back the human induced global warming models. There are legitimate models that say yes, and also legitimate models that say no. There is plenty of research going on. The way I see it, we are trying to predict the weather 100 years from now. I can see how there should be problems with that and contradictory results. http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2002/grace.html
Your last link discusses El Nino, and Volcanism and a few other topics. Its lead sentence: " The El Niño and La Niña are components of Terracycles. El Nino and La Nina are effects linking the ocean to the atmosphere and help drive climate change. As NASA, NOAA and other world science organizations continue to measure the oceans and atmosphere we can expect to see a clear link among solar irradiance, ENSO events, tides, plate tectonics, volcanism, global warming, ice advances, and other Earth cycles." I would certainly agree with that statement. I found these statements also interesting: " Why do thawing permafrost and melting polar ice caps increase the rate of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere? Because there was a higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the time the glaciers were formed. Also, there was abundant vegetation in the polar regions, vegetation that has been frozen but is now decomposing and thus releasing more carbon dioxide (and other gases such as methane) back into the carbon cycle. Human consumption of carbon dioxide is fairly consistent, but nature adds carbon dioxide back into the biosphere during periods of ice thaw, thus the carbon dioxide growth rate varies with natural cycles. During past ice ages, the tropical Pacific Ocean behaved rather as it does today in an El Niño event, bringing downpours to some places and drought to others, say US researchers. The link might help us to understand and predict how and why the Earth's climate can change rapidly. - Nature Dr. Dan Walker at the University of Hawai'i has noticed a strong correlation between seismic activity on the East Pacific Rise (which he presumes indicates an eruption) and El Nino cycles over the past ~25 years. It is the belief of Dr. Walker and others that large numbers of underwater volcanoes contribute toward the heating of the oceans. There were 56 volcanoes having confirmed eruptions in 2001-2002. There is no doubt that volcanoes produce heat, and over 3/4 of the yearly magma budget occurs under our world oceans. Add to the underwater magma the number of hydrothermal vents and there certainly could be enough heat to make a difference. " I must admit I've I not seen someone say there is a relationship between Pacific seismic activity and the El Nino cycles. I think I will read up on it some more, thanks for pointing this out. It was also interesting to see the statement, " Because there was a higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the time the glaciers were formed. " DS