Global Warming In Thailand

[mahtin]

It isn't BIG OIL, it's the GIANT SQUID!!!

The GIANT SQUID are churning up the bottom of the ocean in their endless quest for smaller things to eat, causing the CO2 from eons ago to rise to the surface and burst out into the atmosphere.

While the CO2 is old and rickety after being under water for so long, it is still more potent than Al Gore's personal footprint, thereby causing a hole in the ozone and all the glaciers and icecaps to melt, along with all the snow on all the tall hills, formerly called Mountains.

You can forget BIG OIL as a culprit. In fact, BIG OIL should be downgraded to simply, big oil.

BEWARE THE GIANT SQUID.

Actually methane is worse.

I am currently reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swarm_%28novel%29

Movie coming in 2011.

[scottyd]

Global warming is probably real, but since we do fuc_k all to reduce/stop it, lets stop worrying about it.

Not enough people care to make a change, that is a fact.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

I have always been a global warming skeptic, because I've never seen any proof that global warming actually exists. So I decided to look at temperature records for Thailand. I chose Chiang Mai because there is data available from 1943 to 2009. I chose April because it is generally one of Thailand's hottest months.

The lowest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1949 (29.9 C)

The highest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1983 (39.2 C)

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 1944 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 2009 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai between 1943 and 2009 was 36.1 C

<deleted>,where's the global warming???

There seems to be a consensus among scientists that global warming is a fact, thought the causes of it are disputed.

If you are sceptical, write to a few, let them know and send them your research about Chiang Mai. I am sure they will be happy to revisit their research in light of yours.

[JR Texas]

I have always been a global warming skeptic, because I've never seen any proof that global warming actually exists. So I decided to look at temperature records for Thailand. I chose Chiang Mai because there is data available from 1943 to 2009. I chose April because it is generally one of Thailand's hottest months.

The lowest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1949 (29.9 C)

The highest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1983 (39.2 C)

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 1944 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 2009 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai between 1943 and 2009 was 36.1 C

<deleted>,where's the global warming???

There seems to be a consensus among scientists that global warming is a fact, thought the causes of it are disputed.

If you are sceptical, write to a few, let them know and send them your research about Chiang Mai. I am sure they will be happy to revisit their research in light of yours.

This is why it is important to pay attention to what real scientists are saying about climate change.

First, it is misleading to present data in the format above (you can't pick and choose).........you need to present all of the data points charted over the entire time period to show a "trend."

Second, it is misleading to think that what is happening in Thailand is somehow independent of what is happening worldwide.

Climate change is a global phenomenon. It is also extremely complex.

The important point is what is happening "worldwide."

Specific regions of the world may be responding differently.......that is to be expected given the complexity of climate change.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is real.......and it is a danger to humanity. That is why the "debate" is long since over.

The scientific community and responsible nations are primarily focusing on solutions.

A possible proxy measure of whether climate change in Thailand is real is to simply talk with elderly people and ask them about it........."on average, was it hotter or cooler in the past?" I've done this several times and get the same answer: COOLER

In fact, I have yet to find one elderly person tell me that it was hotter in the past. This is a crude proxy measure, but it is hard for me to believe that all of them are wrong about the weather in the past.

But, as stated above, given the complexities involved in climate change, these types of "measures" are prone to error.

[chuckd]

I have always been a global warming skeptic, because I've never seen any proof that global warming actually exists. So I decided to look at temperature records for Thailand. I chose Chiang Mai because there is data available from 1943 to 2009. I chose April because it is generally one of Thailand's hottest months.

The lowest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1949 (29.9 C)

The highest average April maximum temperature in Chiang Mai was in 1983 (39.2 C)

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 1944 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai in 2009 was 36.1 C

The average maximum April temperature in Chiang Mai between 1943 and 2009 was 36.1 C

<deleted>,where's the global warming???

There seems to be a consensus among scientists that global warming is a fact, thought the causes of it are disputed.

If you are sceptical, write to a few, let them know and send them your research about Chiang Mai. I am sure they will be happy to revisit their research in light of yours.

This is why it is important to pay attention to what real scientists are saying about climate change.

First, it is misleading to present data in the format above (you can't pick and choose).........you need to present all of the data points charted over the entire time period to show a "trend."

Second, it is misleading to think that what is happening in Thailand is somehow independent of what is happening worldwide.

Climate change is a global phenomenon. It is also extremely complex.

The important point is what is happening "worldwide."

Specific regions of the world may be responding differently.......that is to be expected given the complexity of climate change.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is real.......and it is a danger to humanity. That is why the "debate" is long since over.

The scientific community and responsible nations are primarily focusing on solutions.

A possible proxy measure of whether climate change in Thailand is real is to simply talk with elderly people and ask them about it........."on average, was it hotter or cooler in the past?" I've done this several times and get the same answer: COOLER

In fact, I have yet to find one elderly person tell me that it was hotter in the past. This is a crude proxy measure, but it is hard for me to believe that all of them are wrong about the weather in the past.

But, as stated above, given the complexities involved in climate change, these types of "measures" are prone to error.

JR, you forgot your links.

How is the ill-informed, unwashed generation supposed to learn of a world fraught with danger without your links.

Come on man. Step up to the plate and do your job.

PS: IT WAS HOTTER IN THE PAST!

[teatree]

This is why it is important to pay attention to what real scientists are saying about climate change.

First, it is misleading to present data in the format above (you can't pick and choose).........you need to present all of the data points charted over the entire time period to show a "trend."

Second, it is misleading to think that what is happening in Thailand is somehow independent of what is happening worldwide.

Climate change is a global phenomenon. It is also extremely complex.

The important point is what is happening "worldwide."

Specific regions of the world may be responding differently.......that is to be expected given the complexity of climate change.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is real.......and it is a danger to humanity. That is why the "debate" is long since over.

The scientific community and responsible nations are primarily focusing on solutions.

A possible proxy measure of whether climate change in Thailand is real is to simply talk with elderly people and ask them about it........."on average, was it hotter or cooler in the past?" I've done this several times and get the same answer: COOLER

In fact, I have yet to find one elderly person tell me that it was hotter in the past. This is a crude proxy measure, but it is hard for me to believe that all of them are wrong about the weather in the past.

But, as stated above, given the complexities involved in climate change, these types of "measures" are prone to error.

'....the "debate" is long since over.'

There never was a debate and if the man made climate change/global warming/cooling fundamentalists have their way there never will be one.

You may want to try looking science rather than making judgements based on old wives tales. You could start by looking at the ice core data that clearly shows the Earth has been much hotter in the past than it is today.

These ice cores also show that temperature rise PRECEEDS CO2 by hundreds of years, in other words temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way round. Ever wondered why Gore separated the CO2 and temperature graphs in his movie? Go back and have another look.

[JR Texas]

This is why it is important to pay attention to what real scientists are saying about climate change.

First, it is misleading to present data in the format above (you can't pick and choose).........you need to present all of the data points charted over the entire time period to show a "trend."

Second, it is misleading to think that what is happening in Thailand is somehow independent of what is happening worldwide.

Climate change is a global phenomenon. It is also extremely complex.

The important point is what is happening "worldwide."

Specific regions of the world may be responding differently.......that is to be expected given the complexity of climate change.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is real.......and it is a danger to humanity. That is why the "debate" is long since over.

The scientific community and responsible nations are primarily focusing on solutions.

A possible proxy measure of whether climate change in Thailand is real is to simply talk with elderly people and ask them about it........."on average, was it hotter or cooler in the past?" I've done this several times and get the same answer: COOLER

In fact, I have yet to find one elderly person tell me that it was hotter in the past. This is a crude proxy measure, but it is hard for me to believe that all of them are wrong about the weather in the past.

But, as stated above, given the complexities involved in climate change, these types of "measures" are prone to error.

'....the "debate" is long since over.'

There never was a debate and if the man made climate change/global warming/cooling fundamentalists have their way there never will be one.

You may want to try looking science rather than making judgements based on old wives tales. You could start by looking at the ice core data that clearly shows the Earth has been much hotter in the past than it is today.

These ice cores also show that temperature rise PRECEEDS CO2 by hundreds of years, in other words temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way round. Ever wondered why Gore separated the CO2 and temperature graphs in his movie? Go back and have another look.

Yes, in the far distant geological past the earth was very hot..........so hot life was not possible on land. That actually adds nothing to your argument. It has nothing to do with the period we are living in.

There have been at least six massive extinction periods on earth.........we may be playing a dangerous game that will lead to the 7th.

If temperature rise preceeds CO2 rise, why the decoupling over the past 50 years?

CO2 has gone way up........off the charts........temperature has only gone up a small amount in comparison. Your argument does not make sense.

Let me guess your answer: natural causes........human economic activities having nothing to do with it. Dream on!

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://info-pollution.com/warming.htm

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs.../ten-myths.html

You must have your head in the sand to not recognize there was a debate over this issue.........the debate is over, as stated. Your side lost (thankfully).

[astral]

The climate does change, and it is not necessarily man that has an effect.

Back in the 16th century to the mid 19th century there was a mini ice age in Europe.

The river Thames would freeze over.

[chuckd]

The climate does change, and it is not necessarily man that has an effect.

Back in the 16th century to the mid 19th century there was a mini ice age in Europe.

The river Thames would freeze over.

Where was Al Gore when he was needed????

The Mid-19th century could have used some global warming.

[teatree]

This is why it is important to pay attention to what real scientists are saying about climate change.

First, it is misleading to present data in the format above (you can't pick and choose).........you need to present all of the data points charted over the entire time period to show a "trend."

Second, it is misleading to think that what is happening in Thailand is somehow independent of what is happening worldwide.

Climate change is a global phenomenon. It is also extremely complex.

The important point is what is happening "worldwide."

Specific regions of the world may be responding differently.......that is to be expected given the complexity of climate change.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is real.......and it is a danger to humanity. That is why the "debate" is long since over.

The scientific community and responsible nations are primarily focusing on solutions.

A possible proxy measure of whether climate change in Thailand is real is to simply talk with elderly people and ask them about it........."on average, was it hotter or cooler in the past?" I've done this several times and get the same answer: COOLER

In fact, I have yet to find one elderly person tell me that it was hotter in the past. This is a crude proxy measure, but it is hard for me to believe that all of them are wrong about the weather in the past.

But, as stated above, given the complexities involved in climate change, these types of "measures" are prone to error.

'....the "debate" is long since over.'

There never was a debate and if the man made climate change/global warming/cooling fundamentalists have their way there never will be one.

You may want to try looking science rather than making judgements based on old wives tales. You could start by looking at the ice core data that clearly shows the Earth has been much hotter in the past than it is today.

These ice cores also show that temperature rise PRECEEDS CO2 by hundreds of years, in other words temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way round. Ever wondered why Gore separated the CO2 and temperature graphs in his movie? Go back and have another look.

Yes, in the far distant geological past the earth was very hot..........so hot life was not possible on land. That actually adds nothing to your argument. It has nothing to do with the period we are living in.

There have been at least six massive extinction periods on earth.........we may be playing a dangerous game that will lead to the 7th.

If temperature rise preceeds CO2 rise, why the decoupling over the past 50 years?

CO2 has gone way up........off the charts........temperature has only gone up a small amount in comparison. Your argument does not make sense.

Let me guess your answer: natural causes........human economic activities having nothing to do with it. Dream on!

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://info-pollution.com/warming.htm

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs.../ten-myths.html

You must have your head in the sand to not recognize there was a debate over this issue.........the debate is over, as stated. Your side lost (thankfully).

If temperature rise preceeds CO2 rise, why the decoupling over the past 50 years?

If? The fact that CO2 lags behind temperature is scientific fact that even the most diehard AGW supporting scientists accept. Take a look at the graphs, overlap them, and show me me where CO2 leads temperature.

As for the decoupling I would say that 50 years is too miniscule a period of time to take as a snapshot and base any conclusions on. When dealing with the climate you have to look at trends spanning centuries and thousands of years. The ice core data shows that although the general correlation between CO2 and temperature is stark, the respective levels are not precisely in lockstep with each other.

'You must have your head in the sand to not recognize there was a debate over this issue.........the debate is over, as stated. Your side lost (thankfully).'

The simple fact that tens thousands of general scientists, hundreds of top international scientists, and a large number of ex IPCC scientists have rejected AGW discredits any idea that there is a consensus and that debate is over.

[jasreeve17]

Fark me sideways...

I know how many muppets this forum attracts, but you anti-Global Warming muppets take the cake.

[yabaaaa]

Fark me sideways...

I know how many muppets this forum attracts, but you anti-Global Warming muppets take the cake.

The same as the global warming muppets I think youll find

[Thaddeus]

Where was Al Gore when he was needed????

He was busy inventing the internet.

[JR Texas]

You said temperature rises, then CO2 rises, not the other way around.

I pointed out that CO2 has risen dramatically over the past half century without a similar rise in temperature (taking place before the CO2 rise). And now you dismiss that as an "anomaly."

Facts seem hard to digest when they don't fit your model.

The fact is that climate change is real and complex. What is causing alarm bells is the pace of change over the past half century, mainly due to human economic activities.

For those who need a more scientific explanation about the relationship between temperature and CO2 over time, the scientific explanation is here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

[JR Texas]

You said temperature rises, then CO2 rises, not the other way around.

I pointed out that CO2 has risen dramatically over the past half century without a similar rise in temperature (taking place before the CO2 rise). And now you dismiss that as an "anomaly."

Facts seem hard to digest when they don't fit your model.

The fact is that climate change is real and complex. What is causing alarm bells is the pace of change over the past half century, mainly due to human economic activities.

For those who need a more scientific explanation about the relationship between temperature and CO2 over time, the scientific explanation is here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Given the predictable non-scientific response to what I just posted will soon follow, for those who really want answers, this link makes for good reading (all of the questions below are covered):

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi.../05/start-here/

* What Factors Determine Earth’s Climate?

* What is the Relationship between Climate Change and Weather?

* What is the Greenhouse Effect?

* How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?

* How are Temperatures on Earth Changing?

* How is Precipitation Changing?

* Has there been a Change in Extreme Events like Heat Waves, Droughts, Floods and Hurricanes?

* Is the Amount of Snow and Ice on the Earth Decreasing?

* Is Sea Level Rising?

* What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?

* Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earth’s History?

* Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities?

* How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?

* Can Individual Extreme Events be Explained by Greenhouse Warming?

* Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?

* Are Extreme Events, Like Heat Waves, Droughts or Floods, Expected to Change as the Earth’s Climate Changes?

* How Likely are Major or Abrupt Climate Changes, such as Loss of Ice Sheets or Changes in Global Ocean Circulation?

* If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease?

* Do Projected Changes in Climate Vary from Region to Region?

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

I have read a fair bit of this thread but do not recall reading what you are suppose to do that will meaningfully reduce global warming?

Did I miss it or is there a solution?

[JR Texas]

I have read a fair bit of this thread but do not recall reading what you are suppose to do that will meaningfully reduce global warming?

Did I miss it or is there a solution?

Thanks for that post...........I and others have tried hard to move away from this non-debate to something more substantial: focusing on solutions. But each time we do it threatens those that support BIG OIL, they try hard to get off the issue, and so on.

The solution is to use all of the transitional methods (more efficient devices, solar, wind, hydro-power, geothermal, nuclear) at our disposal until we develop a totally new system of energy (one appropriate for the 21st century) that will solve virtually all of our economic and environmental problems.

Personally, I think we need to also focus on reducing population levels worldwide...........a serious reduction in human numbers.

Putting a stop to tropical deforestation is also critical.

Plant trees.............everywhere........lots of them.

Move towards a quality driven economy (instead of a wasteful quantity driven one)

A huge upsurge in recycling is necessary.

A change in psyche is necessary..........moving towards a more "needs based" as opposed to "wants base" type of thinking.

The list of solutions is huge.

The irony of it all is that the climate change is a myth people think this will all cost us too much money. In fact, it will do just the opposite and if we do create a new system of energy, that alone will create huge numbers of quality jobs (something that we need now, worldwide).

[chuckd]

I have read a fair bit of this thread but do not recall reading what you are suppose to do that will meaningfully reduce global warming?

Did I miss it or is there a solution?

Thanks for that post...........I and others have tried hard to move away from this non-debate to something more substantial: focusing on solutions. But each time we do it threatens those that support BIG OIL, they try hard to get off the issue, and so on.

The solution is to use all of the transitional methods (more efficient devices, solar, wind, hydro-power, geothermal, nuclear) at our disposal until we develop a totally new system of energy (one appropriate for the 21st century) that will solve virtually all of our economic and environmental problems.

Personally, I think we need to also focus on reducing population levels worldwide...........a serious reduction in human numbers.

Putting a stop to tropical deforestation is also critical.

Plant trees.............everywhere........lots of them.

Move towards a quality driven economy (instead of a wasteful quantity driven one)

A huge upsurge in recycling is necessary.

A change in psyche is necessary..........moving towards a more "needs based" as opposed to "wants base" type of thinking.

The list of solutions is huge.

The irony of it all is that the climate change is a myth people think this will all cost us too much money. In fact, it will do just the opposite and if we do create a new system of energy, that alone will create huge numbers of quality jobs (something that we need now, worldwide).

Only a few comments to one of the more patently absurd posts ever.

1. Why not give us your proposal for this new form of alternative energy rather than scatter shooting these inane ideas into the air. How about something concrete for a change?

2. How do you propose the population downturn? War, famine, birth control, natural disasters are all ways to accomplish your goals of fewer human beings around to spoil your perfect climate. Quit dreaming and give us some sound, practical proposals to accomlish your goals. How many children do you propose aborting in order to stop this made rush towards re-population? Do you propose that BIG GOVERNMENT take on this task? BIG OIL is too busy polluting the world to take this little chore on.

3. I can understand your plea to plant more trees. This will give us more shade to protect us from the real culprit in the global warming hysteria...the Sun.

Besides that, it will give you folks something to hug.

[teatree]

You said temperature rises, then CO2 rises, not the other way around.

I pointed out that CO2 has risen dramatically over the past half century without a similar rise in temperature (taking place before the CO2 rise). And now you dismiss that as an "anomaly."

Facts seem hard to digest when they don't fit your model.

The fact is that climate change is real and complex. What is causing alarm bells is the pace of change over the past half century, mainly due to human economic activities.

For those who need a more scientific explanation about the relationship between temperature and CO2 over time, the scientific explanation is here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Ok, I'll say it once again.

50 years is such a pathetically small period of time to be judging the climate. 50 years isn't even a twinkling of an eye in a climate that has trends going back hundreds of thousands of years.

If you actually looked at the ice core data you would notice that CO2 and temperature do not fit together absolutely precisely - that would be ridiculous - indeed it is NORMAL for there to be a discrepency if you only look at a very small period of time. BUT the overall trend over hundreds and thousands of years is clear. Temperature goes up first and then CO2 lags behind. Come on, even the most devout AGW scientists accept this to be fact.

[teatree]

Oh dear, ANOTHER IPCC scientists rejects the AGW hysteria. Bring on the 'paid by BIG OIL' comments.

http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2894

UN IPCC Scientist Touts Skeptical Warming Views: 'I don't see that CO2 is inducing any climate change'

'I call climate fears some kind of a belief, a religion or an ideology that seems to pervade'

2009-07-31 (C122)

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Retired Environment Canada Scientist

In Brief:

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar is a former Research Scientist from Environment Canada where he worked for about 25 years. Khandekar holds M.Sc degree in Statistics from India and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorology from USA. Khandekar has been in the fields of atmosphere/ ocean/climate for over 50 years and has published over 125 papers, reports, book reviews, scientific commentaries etc. He has published over 40 peer-reviewed papers in various international Journals and authored a book on ocean surface wave analysis and modeling, published by Springer-Verlag in 1989. Khandekar is presently on the editorial board of the Journal Natural Hazards (Netherlands) and is a former editor of the journal Climate Research (Germany). He was an expert reviewer for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Climate Change Documents (AR4) published in 2007. Dr. Khandekar was interviewed in Winnipeg on June 30th, 2009.

Frontier Centre: Can you tell us a little bit about your professional background and specifically how you became interested in the climate change issue?

Madhav Khandekar: I spent my entire career in the science of weather and climate, 51 years to be exact. I did my doctorate degree in meteorology from Florida State University in the United States in 1968. I came to Canada on a post-doctorate fellowship. I worked with Environment Canada for about 25 years as a research scientist. I also taught two United Nations programs, one in Barbados in 1975 - 1977 and one in Quatar in the Middle East teaching aeronautical meteorology from 1980 – 1982. After retirement I was doing contracts here and there and the topic of climate change became hotly debated and one thing led to another and I did some contracts with the Alberta government since that government is interested in finding out how climate change impacts their oil industry, in particular. So my first report was on the uncertainties in greenhouse gas-induced climate changed. That led to another report on the extreme weather events and drought in the Canadian Prairies. In the last 10 years I have published a few papers and I have strong reservations about the science that is espoused by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). In fact two years ago the IPCC office in the UK invited me to be a reviewer for one chapter which I provided in two stages, FOD-First Order Draft and SOD-Second Order Draft, between November 2005 and July 2006. I made a comprehensive review of the IPCC Documents, but unfortunately they did not take into account all the critical points that I submitted in my review. I think the second volume of that report that I was reviewing has come out about the same way which I did not want it to be but that’s the way it is. I now write and do research primarily on my own.

FC: For the record has the earth been getting warmer over the past half century?

MK: If you ask past half century then I have to answer yes. But I think you have to be careful about it. If you look at the entire 20th century, then from about 1915 till about 1945 the earth warmed rather steeply, more steeply than it has warmed in recent years. After the World War II, industrial CO2 started to increase. And interestingly the earth’s temperature was going down till about 1977. The meteorologists and even the climate scientists haven’t provided an exact or definite answer to why earth’s climate was cooling from 1945 till about 1977. They say aerosol cooling but the aerosol data on global scale was not there at that time. So now in the last 25 years the climate has warmed but once again since about mid 1998 the temperature is slowly but surely declining. At this point I don’t think it’s correct to say that the planet is continuing to warm because it has essentially stayed about the same. There is no additional warming of the entire earth-atmosphere-ocean system in the last few years.

FC: So if we have rising CO2 levels and the temperatures are declining doesn’t that present a problem for the theory of CO2-induced global warming?

MK: It does. I think we must first explain this discrepancy out of climate modelers’ simulation. There are times that are several years when the temperature goes down and then again it’s up. So right now most climate scientists are saying that what we see, the cooling, is just a part of gradual warming. But I think there are a lot of problems with that kind of explanation. More importantly so many solar scientists are now definitely saying that the sun is getting into a weaker phase. The next solar cycle, Cycle 24 as it is called is expected to be significantly weaker and it will probably be the weakest solar cycle since 1930.

FC: Which means cooler weather?

MK: Quite possibly, if the solar scientists are right. I do not see any immediate signs of sudden warming now. The ocean’s heat storage for the top 700m ocean depth worldwide has declined Unless the oceans’ heat storage increases rapidly I don’t see any warming on the land.

FC: Does there currently exist a consensus among the scientific community surrounding the causes of the slight warming trend which has been documented over the past 50 years? Or are there competing explanations?

MK: A very intense debate is going on. Most of the skeptics like me feel that the warming that we saw during the 80’s and 90’s was most possibly due to the natural variability of the climate, just as there was a cooling of the earth’s climate from 1945 to about 1977. More importantly many skeptics and solar scientists feel that this warming and cooling is possibly driven by the variability of the total radiation received at the top of earth’s atmosphere. So the problem is much more complex than what the IPCC has projected to us.

FC: Which of the various theories that have been put forward to explain recent changes in temperature do you find the most compelling?

MK: From my perspective I feel that the warming that we saw during the 80’s and 90’s is most likely the natural variability of climate. There may have been a contribution, but a very small one, from human-added CO2. But I do not see human-added CO2 causing a significant warming in the next few years to few decades.

FC: Does CO2, or the more politically correct term greenhouse gas emissions, have any impact whatsoever on global temperatures or are they entirely irrelevant?

MK: They are entirely irrelevant. I don’t see that CO2 is inducing any climate change. CO2 may have induced a small amount of warming that we saw in the 80’s and 90’s but more importantly CO2 is an inert gas, it is not a pollutant. That’s a misleading misconception. It is a very healthy ingredient for the world’s agriculture and forestry. We have shown definitely through satellite data that world forestry has been enriched in the last 10 years because of increased CO2. I think it is incorrect to say that CO2 is a pollutant and a dangerous gas and it’s a misleading concept.

FC: Some who are skeptical about global warming alarmism have argued that the earth was much warmer at other points in recorded history than it is today say during the Medieval Warm Period about 1000 years ago. Is this true or is the earth today actually hotter than it has been during other recorded time periods of human history?

MK: No, it is not true at all. What you said is right. During the Medieval Warm Period from about the 8 – 12th century the earth was almost certainly as warm, or possibly even slightly warmer. There is a debate going on but I think it is now proven more or less beyond a shadow of a doubt based on a lot of ice core and other data that during the Medieval Period that the earth was at least as warm. Not only that, but around 1000 AD , most of the Arctic Ocean was free of ice. A lot of anecdotal data and stories suggesting that the Vikings were actually sailing in the Arctic Ocean where there is permanent ice pack now are correct. If the Arctic ice pack starts to melt a little bit as it is now I don’t think it a matter of great concern to us. It shouldn’t be.

FC: There have been many highly publicized computer models which suggest that global temperatures are likely to skyrocket in the years ahead as a result of the greenhouse gas emissions. Do these computer models worry you?

MK: No they don’t worry me at all. In my lifetime I have worked with a large number of atmospheric models, ocean wave models, small scale models, regional models, what have you. I know the limitations of these models. My work, primarily in my career of more than 50 years, was with short-term weather forecasting, 12 hours, 24 hours, 1 – 3 days, never forecasting beyond a week. Now I am interested in seasonal predictions but sort of in a different technique than a computer model. I think computer models have a lot of inherent difficulties in simulating precisely the large-scale circulations of the atmosphere.

FC: In addition to the models, some who are alarmed about climate change say that recent history and in particular the data shown in the hockey stick graph provides conclusive evidence that global temperatures are rising quickly. Can you tell us a bit about the hockey stick graph and if it really is a smoking gun that proves the alarmists right?

MK: The hockey stick was a graph constructed by some scientists about 10 years ago. What it was meant to show was that the earth’s temperature from about 1080 till about 1850 remained essentially constant and then it started to shoot up. Lots of problems have been found out in the graph. The most glaring error in the hockey stick was that it did not show the Little Ice Age, which was significant. It did not show the Medieval Warm Period from the 8th – 12th century, which was also significant. There were errors in the use of the tree-ring data and also other errors. So today, most scientists dismiss the hockey stick. They do not consider the hockey stick graph to be a correct representation of the global mean temperature. Having said that, yes, we did see the mean temperature of the earth warming but in an erratic way, not steadily. For a few years it will go up and then it will come down and again it goes up and so on. Part of the explanation is that after the 200 years of the Little Ice Age from about 1600 – 1850 the earth was quite cool, almost 1.5 degrees in the mean temperature to about 1 degree for sure, There area lot of historical stories are available how in the UK, for example, the River Thames would be frozen solid during winter which it doesn’t freeze now. Most of Europe was under a blanket of snow for long periods of time. So while the earth was coming out of the Little Ice Age to warm and so it warmed in more or less in a natural fashion. Now I think, most skeptics, think that the earth’s mean temperature has steadied again. There is no more warming of the earth right now and if the solar scientists are right we might see even a significant decline in the earth’s main temperature in the next 10 – 20 years.

FC: In recent years, people have stopped talking about global warming and instead have started to use the term climate change. Is there a reason for this change in language?

MK: Very interesting question. Scientists who have been advocating the science of global warming induced climate change are realizing that there is no more global warming to talk about so they are now talking about climate change. But when you analyze carefully earth’s climate history you find that earth’s climate was never constant, it was constantly changing. The only the thing constant about earth’s climate was that it was always changing. If we go back into geological times, there were periods where the earth was very warm. During the Cretaceous for example, 120 – 140 million years ago the earth was so warm that it is speculated that there was not even a speck of ice on either of the poles. The forest extended all the way to the North Pole and perhaps part of the Antarctica. The climate has always been changing. Even in the past 100 years of the 20th century we have excellent data and we see that the climate warmed in the first half of the century, then it cooled for about 25 years and then it warmed for the 80’s and 90’s and now we are probably seeing a sort of tapering off or even a cooling of the climate. Climate change is nothing to be worried about. It is something that the earth is going through and the best way to deal with this climate change is to slowly but surely add up to a slightly different climate change that we experience worldwide. No big deal.

FC: There are some scientists, in particular some Russian scientists, who are predicting several decades of cooler weather. Do you have any thoughts on that?

MK: I’m not an expert on solar physics so I cannot definitively make any points but the more literature I sift through, and I have come across a large number of papers, on solar impacts on earth’s climate and based on the observations. I am more of an observational guy I like to see the data before making any definitive conclusion, and the temperature data and the extreme weather data does not suggest to me that the earth’s climate is going through some dangerous period or some unusual climate situation. I think what we see is part of natural variability and earth’s climate is a very robust entity I don’t see that this climate is getting destabilized because of human activity. It is more a perception that was created by somewhat of an alarmist view.

FC: Some have asserted that a number of extreme weather events that have occurred in recent years such as Hurricane Katrina can be attributed to global warming and in particular greenhouse gas emissions. Is this a reasonable argument?

MK: No, not at all. In fact one of the areas I tried to do some extensive research is in the area of extreme weather events. One of my contracts with the Alberta government was to study the extreme weather events particularly on the Canadian Prairie provinces but as an extension I also looked at weather events worldwide particularly studying the Indian monsoon for a long time. I have analyzed 150 years of Indian monsoon data and I have found that major droughts and floods have occurred in the Indian monsoon data in an irregular manner. It has nothing to do with climate change. Also I have analyzed extreme weather events during the 1945 – 1977 period when the earth’s temperature was slightly declining and I have found that there were just as many extreme weather events during that period as there were during the 1980’s and 90’s. So the argument that warming would increase extreme weather events is without any merit.

FC: Canada and the United States are both considering enacting cap-and-trade policies to lower our national greenhouse gas emissions. Are these policies likely to have any impact on global temperatures in the coming decades?

MK: No, not at all. In fact it would have very little impact, if any. Before we go to these cap-and-trade policy I think the climate scientists and even the UNFCC, which is holding its next meeting in Copenhagen in December, should first explain why the mean temperature is not rising despite about 100 billion tons of human-added carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere in the last 10 years. So I think that unless we thoroughly examine the present state of the climate change science there is very little point in trying to cap-and-trade CO2. It may be a good idea in terms of monitoring if CO2 really becomes a problem but at this point in time I do not see CO2 as a problem at all.

FC: Do you see any issue with increasing coal consumption because the anti-CO2 people generally oppose this?

MK: I think this is more of an economic and political problem. The major problem with coal use is environmental pollution which is definitely a problem but not still a major problem as it is in some third world countries where I have lived. I think a judicious use of coal can be a good source of energy to future generations. ( A major problem with coal is the atmospheric pollution thru particulate matter its produces. But a clean-coal technology can be developed and coal use in developing countries like India & China may be on the increase in future. A judicious use of coal would be very useful for many developing countries in particular, where coal is plentiful).

FC: It seems that more and more scientists seem to be publishing papers and making statements questioning the belief that man-man climate change is a serious problem. Can you explain this increase in the number of scientists who are expressing scepticism about human-caused global warming?

MK: I do not see man-made climate change as a serious problem at all. In fact, I do not subscribe to the view that the climate is changing due to human activities. As I have mentioned in my earlier explanation, the climate is always changing. Yes, the climate has changed in Canada, in parts of Europe but if you carefully analyze the tropical area, the equatorial region where a large population lives today I have studied the tropical and equatorial climate in my career for a long time and I think that the climate change there is minimal. The equator or the tropical region or the South Asian countries live in perpetually hot climate. They rarely have minimum temperatures going below 22 degrees. Their maximum temperature in the afternoon is always between 32 – 35 degrees, give or take a couple of degrees, and despite this perpetually hot climate most of these countries have made good economic progress. To give one example from my original country, India has increased their grain growing productivity almost 4 – 5 times in the last 50 years using just about the same amount of agricultural land. I think technological advances have helped India and countries like China, Thailand and Indonesia grow and improve grain production and provide adequate food and possibly shelter to the large number of humanity that lives there today. So I do not see climate change as a serious problem for humanity at all.

FC: How do we turn around the vast amount of ignorance on this topic?

MK: I wouldn’t call it ignorance. I call it some kind of a belief, religion or an ideology that seems to pervade particularly in North America and European counties. Based on my experience, having lived in various parts of the world during my career as visiting or working for example in the Middle East in Qatar or the Caribbean, in Barbados I do not see such concerns in many of the equatorial countries. I think most people in tropical countries and African countries have many other serious problems like AIDS, improper healthcare, inadequate water supply. They have no time to worry about global warming at all. I think if their political management does a good job with their economies and if they are provided with ways to improve their agricultural product they will be much better off than trying to follow this hypothesis of climate change and divert their scarce resources on that. I do not see, honestly, any adverse impact at all. Most of these countries can conveniently deal with possible extreme weather events including any rising of sea level. Actually I am working on a paper on rising sea level and how it is maybe no more than 25cm at most for the next 100 years which is not at all a serious sea level rise in my opinion.

[mahtin]

I have read a fair bit of this thread but do not recall reading what you are suppose to do that will meaningfully reduce global warming?

Did I miss it or is there a solution?

Basically stopping all the hot air would do it

[JR Texas]

You said temperature rises, then CO2 rises, not the other way around.

I pointed out that CO2 has risen dramatically over the past half century without a similar rise in temperature (taking place before the CO2 rise). And now you dismiss that as an "anomaly."

Facts seem hard to digest when they don't fit your model.

The fact is that climate change is real and complex. What is causing alarm bells is the pace of change over the past half century, mainly due to human economic activities.

For those who need a more scientific explanation about the relationship between temperature and CO2 over time, the scientific explanation is here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Ok, I'll say it once again.

50 years is such a pathetically small period of time to be judging the climate. 50 years isn't even a twinkling of an eye in a climate that has trends going back hundreds of thousands of years.

If you actually looked at the ice core data you would notice that CO2 and temperature do not fit together absolutely precisely - that would be ridiculous - indeed it is NORMAL for there to be a discrepency if you only look at a very small period of time. BUT the overall trend over hundreds and thousands of years is clear. Temperature goes up first and then CO2 lags behind. Come on, even the most devout AGW scientists accept this to be fact.

So, you have no explanation for the decoupling. Are you the same person who said climate change is not happening because CO2 is too heavy to rise in the atmosphere?

I am assuming now that you think we are in a natural warming period. So, if that is true, it would be incredibly foolish of us to continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere........all we would be doing is exacerbating a natural trend.

Anyway, at least you understand that long term data can be important. But what is important now is what HUMANS are doing in RECENT HISTORY.

The relationship between CO2 levels and temperature across time is an interesting subject (many complicated variables at play).

But what is most relevant is what has been happening over the past 50-100 years--during the time when WE obtained the ability to CHANGE CLIMATE PATTERNS.

What we are seeing is CO2 levels skyrocketing...........a similar rise in temperature did not happen before CO2 levels went up (the decoupling), but temperatures have risen and are predicted to continue to rise.

We are also seeing huge glaciers melting...........among other things.

All of this is happening at a time when the sun's intensity (or earth's rotational variation or volcanic eruptions, etc) has not varied enough to account for the changes in temperature.........so something else is happening.

That "something else" is human beings pouring formerly sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere. BIG OIL wants us to continue doing this. Why? To make big money.

By the way, you never get 100% agreement among scientists on anything.............you can always find and post a comment by a crackpot scientists........what is important in science is not 100% agreement, it is consensus. That consensus is usually revealed in peer review journals.

And the consensus is clear: human-induced climate change is real and a dangerous threat to civilization as we know it.

[teatree]

You said temperature rises, then CO2 rises, not the other way around.

I pointed out that CO2 has risen dramatically over the past half century without a similar rise in temperature (taking place before the CO2 rise). And now you dismiss that as an "anomaly."

Facts seem hard to digest when they don't fit your model.

The fact is that climate change is real and complex. What is causing alarm bells is the pace of change over the past half century, mainly due to human economic activities.

For those who need a more scientific explanation about the relationship between temperature and CO2 over time, the scientific explanation is here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Ok, I'll say it once again.

50 years is such a pathetically small period of time to be judging the climate. 50 years isn't even a twinkling of an eye in a climate that has trends going back hundreds of thousands of years.

If you actually looked at the ice core data you would notice that CO2 and temperature do not fit together absolutely precisely - that would be ridiculous - indeed it is NORMAL for there to be a discrepency if you only look at a very small period of time. BUT the overall trend over hundreds and thousands of years is clear. Temperature goes up first and then CO2 lags behind. Come on, even the most devout AGW scientists accept this to be fact.

So, you have no explanation for the decoupling. Are you the same person who said climate change is not happening because CO2 is too heavy to rise in the atmosphere?

I am assuming now that you think we are in a natural warming period. So, if that is true, it would be incredibly foolish of us to continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere........all we would be doing is exacerbating a natural trend.

Anyway, at least you understand that long term data can be important. But what is important now is what HUMANS are doing in RECENT HISTORY.

The relationship between CO2 levels and temperature across time is an interesting subject (many complicated variables at play).

But what is most relevant is what has been happening over the past 50-100 years--during the time when WE obtained the ability to CHANGE CLIMATE PATTERNS.

What we are seeing is CO2 levels skyrocketing...........a similar rise in temperature did not happen before CO2 levels went up (the decoupling), but temperatures have risen and are predicted to continue to rise.

We are also seeing huge glaciers melting...........among other things.

All of this is happening at a time when the sun's intensity (or earth's rotational variation or volcanic eruptions, etc) has not varied enough to account for the changes in temperature.........so something else is happening.

That "something else" is human beings pouring formerly sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere. BIG OIL wants us to continue doing this. Why? To make big money.

By the way, you never get 100% agreement among scientists on anything.............you can always find and post a comment by a crackpot scientists........what is important in science is not 100% agreement, it is consensus. That consensus is usually revealed in peer review journals.

And the consensus is clear: human-induced climate change is real and a dangerous threat to civilization as we know it.

You still seem to be stuck in a human perspective of time. 50 years is a long time for you and me, but for a climate it is meaningless.

As I have said it is established fact that temperature leads CO2. This does not mean that one second it rises and then the next second CO2 rises. That is a very childlike view of a very complex system. It can take hundreds of years for a rise in temperature to have an effect on CO2.

For example, when the ocean is relatively cool it is a store of CO2, but as it heats up it releases CO2. If the temperature of the planet increases it takes a very long time for the ocean to follow suit (due to its immense size) and start to release CO2 - potentially hundreds of years.

If you look at the ice core data there are thousands of instances where CO2 and temperature decouple if you take a very short time frame as a snapshot, there are plenty of instances when CO2 jumps up above temperature. But this is always in reaction to a rise in temperature that occurred perhaps centuries before, or natural emitters of CO2 like volcanoes. Over the long term the trend is clear and indisputable - temperature causes CO2 to rise.

The current warming trend (although this has stopped and dipped into cooling in recent years) stretches back 200 years or so - the warming we have been experiencing is nothing new.

There are many international scientists (a number of whom were signatories to the IPCC report) who have published peer reviewed papers casting doubt on AGW. How many of these does it take to 'come out' before you pull your head out of the sand and actually read what they have to say? I guess as long as CNN and BBC keep on with the propaganda.

Now, I have two questions for you:

If we are experiencing greenhouse warming, why is there no warming in the troposphere? It is accepted fact (it is part of the calculation in IPCC models) that the troposphere will warm more than any other area in any greenhouse effect warming but there has been none, so how can you explain this?

Exactly who are the scientists on the IPCC report? What are their credentials and how are their views more valid than the 'crack pot' scientists who deny AGW?

[bonobo]

For all the hysteria one way or another, the fact is that glaciers are shrinking, ice packs are shrinking, and the periods in which ice can replensih itself is getting shorter and shorter.  As I am not a scientist, I would have to say that this is a pretty good indication that global warming is a fact.  And if the ice packs melt into the ocean causing sea levels to rise, then what has already started will escalate--habital land will become deluged.  This is happening folks now.  It is not open to debate.

Now whether this is because of natural cycles or is totally as a result of human activities really is not that important.  The most ridiculous arguement I have read here and in other threds byt hte religiously anti-global warming crowd is that because they feel global warming is a natural occurence, then it is not a problem and need not be addressed.  Well, the flooding of the Yellow River is a natural occurence, one which killed tens of millions of people in the 20th Century.  Were the Chinese wrong in trying to tame the Hwang Ho?  Were they wrong because its flooding was natural?

Personally, I believe that the current global warming is part of both.  It is partly a natural cycle, but it is partly as a result of human activity.  Just looking at the local weather reports show that humans can affect micorclimates.  In the winter, look at the dispribution of temperatures inside and outside of cities.  There might be a range of 8 or even 10 degrees F inside New York and 30 miles away in a more rural setting.  But then again, what I believe will not have one whit of effect on what happens.  Only what I do can have an effect.

Even if global warmign is mostly natural, we can still reduce greenhouse gasses, we can still reduce our contribution to the problem, be that contirbution large or small.  And no, we don't have the answers now.  Castigating JR Texas for advocating bridge technologies and not having some sort of global solution in his pocket is ludicrous.  No one has that solution.  But implementing these bridging technologies is better than nothing.  I drive through Germany and marvel at the huge number of windmills, and I think about the significant number of jobs this requites, how many fewer barrels of oil they have to import, how many fewer tons of pollutants are put into the air and water because of them.

If we implement all the bridging technolgies we can while we search for a more effective solution, even if that has little or no effect on global warming, it will have huge beneficial effects on our society.  It will create jobs, lessen our demand on foreign energy, and combat pollution.  Which one of these is bad?  Which one of these hurts us in any possible way?

Some people seem to want to stick their heads in the sand.  They seemingly beleive that nature is king and should not be thwarted by man.  But isn't disease natural, too?  Do these same peopel eschew medicine when they are sick?  Do they eat farmed food instead of going out and hunting it?

There is nothing in the ideas of using renewable resources or more efficient technologies as a way to reduce the burning of fossil fuels that I can see in any negative light.  And if the man-made theory of global warming is correct, then these steps can help combat it. This is the proverbial win-win.  No one loses here, except for maybe certain specific  countries and corporate powers.  

[JR Texas]

For all the hysteria one way or another, the fact is that glaciers are shrinking, ice packs are shrinking, and the periods in which ice can replensih itself is getting shorter and shorter.  As I am not a scientist, I would have to say that this is a pretty good indication that global warming is a fact.  And if the ice packs melt into the ocean causing sea levels to rise, then what has already started will escalate--habital land will become deluged.  This is happening folks now.  It is not open to debate.

Now whether this is because of natural cycles or is totally as a result of human activities really is not that important.  The most ridiculous arguement I have read here and in other threds byt hte religiously anti-global warming crowd is that because they feel global warming is a natural occurence, then it is not a problem and need not be addressed.  Well, the flooding of the Yellow River is a natural occurence, one which killed tens of millions of people in the 20th Century.  Were the Chinese wrong in trying to tame the Hwang Ho?  Were they wrong because its flooding was natural?

Personally, I believe that the current global warming is part of both.  It is partly a natural cycle, but it is partly as a result of human activity.  Just looking at the local weather reports show that humans can affect micorclimates.  In the winter, look at the dispribution of temperatures inside and outside of cities.  There might be a range of 8 or even 10 degrees F inside New York and 30 miles away in a more rural setting.  But then again, what I believe will not have one whit of effect on what happens.  Only what I do can have an effect.

Even if global warmign is mostly natural, we can still reduce greenhouse gasses, we can still reduce our contribution to the problem, be that contirbution large or small.  And no, we don't have the answers now.  Castigating JR Texas for advocating bridge technologies and not having some sort of global solution in his pocket is ludicrous.  No one has that solution.  But implementing these bridging technologies is better than nothing.  I drive through Germany and marvel at the huge number of windmills, and I think about the significant number of jobs this requites, how many fewer barrels of oil they have to import, how many fewer tons of pollutants are put into the air and water because of them.

If we implement all the bridging technolgies we can while we search for a more effective solution, even if that has little or no effect on global warming, it will have huge beneficial effects on our society.  It will create jobs, lessen our demand on foreign energy, and combat pollution.  Which one of these is bad?  Which one of these hurts us in any possible way?

Some people seem to want to stick their heads in the sand.  They seemingly beleive that nature is king and should not be thwarted by man.  But isn't disease natural, too?  Do these same peopel eschew medicine when they are sick?  Do they eat farmed food instead of going out and hunting it?

There is nothing in the ideas of using renewable resources or more efficient technologies as a way to reduce the burning of fossil fuels that I can see in any negative light.  And if the man-made theory of global warming is correct, then these steps can help combat it. This is the proverbial win-win.  No one loses here, except for maybe certain specific  countries and corporate powers.  

I understand what you are saying.........(but I am certain they will not be able to get it).

If they are right (normal cycle caused by natural forcing)......we have to do everything in our power to stop releasing excess CO2 and other global warming gases into the atmosphere.

If they are wrong (abnormal cycle caused largely by human-induced forcing).....we have we have to do everything in our power to stop releasing excess CO2 and other global warming gases into the atmosphere.

They are, of course, totally wrong. The overwhelming consensus among responsible scientists is clear: climate change is real and must be corrected.

Taking action to rid ourselves from an outdated and destructive energy system will generate much needed jobs worldwide........no downside to it.

[AleG]

For all the hysteria one way or another, the fact is that glaciers are shrinking, ice packs are shrinking, and the periods in which ice can replensih itself is getting shorter and shorter.  As I am not a scientist, I would have to say that this is a pretty good indication that global warming is a fact.  And if the ice packs melt into the ocean causing sea levels to rise, then what has already started will escalate--habital land will become deluged.  This is happening folks now.  It is not open to debate.

Now whether this is because of natural cycles or is totally as a result of human activities really is not that important.  The most ridiculous arguement I have read here and in other threds byt hte religiously anti-global warming crowd is that because they feel global warming is a natural occurence, then it is not a problem and need not be addressed.  Well, the flooding of the Yellow River is a natural occurence, one which killed tens of millions of people in the 20th Century.  Were the Chinese wrong in trying to tame the Hwang Ho?  Were they wrong because its flooding was natural?

Personally, I believe that the current global warming is part of both.  It is partly a natural cycle, but it is partly as a result of human activity.  Just looking at the local weather reports show that humans can affect micorclimates.  In the winter, look at the dispribution of temperatures inside and outside of cities.  There might be a range of 8 or even 10 degrees F inside New York and 30 miles away in a more rural setting.  But then again, what I believe will not have one whit of effect on what happens.  Only what I do can have an effect.

Even if global warmign is mostly natural, we can still reduce greenhouse gasses, we can still reduce our contribution to the problem, be that contirbution large or small.  And no, we don't have the answers now.  Castigating JR Texas for advocating bridge technologies and not having some sort of global solution in his pocket is ludicrous.  No one has that solution.  But implementing these bridging technologies is better than nothing.  I drive through Germany and marvel at the huge number of windmills, and I think about the significant number of jobs this requites, how many fewer barrels of oil they have to import, how many fewer tons of pollutants are put into the air and water because of them.

If we implement all the bridging technolgies we can while we search for a more effective solution, even if that has little or no effect on global warming, it will have huge beneficial effects on our society.  It will create jobs, lessen our demand on foreign energy, and combat pollution.  Which one of these is bad?  Which one of these hurts us in any possible way?

Some people seem to want to stick their heads in the sand.  They seemingly beleive that nature is king and should not be thwarted by man.  But isn't disease natural, too?  Do these same peopel eschew medicine when they are sick?  Do they eat farmed food instead of going out and hunting it?

There is nothing in the ideas of using renewable resources or more efficient technologies as a way to reduce the burning of fossil fuels that I can see in any negative light.  And if the man-made theory of global warming is correct, then these steps can help combat it. This is the proverbial wi

n-win.  No one loses here, except for maybe certain specific  countries and corporate powers.  

Nice and even headed post, consider your hand shaken.

As for the bolded part, there's a lot of people with the stance that since god created the Earth, and we are just puny humans, nothing we do can destroy or damage his creation. For example: read and weep.

That doesn't mean the anti-Climate change crowd is all composed of religious fundamentalists, but it's part of the group. A particularly intransigent segment since no amount of evidence would ever convince such a specimen.

[Narachon]

Some people seem to want to stick their heads in the sand.  

Sad, but unfortunately, so true...

Don't worry, bobobo, JR Texas, AleG, Jingthing, Birdman, and others here who truly understands the reality and gravity of this situation.

It may not appear so on this site, but most people in the world are aware of this, and many are willing to do something about this problem that will effect us all sooner or later.........

In just over a 100 days and two weeks the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Climate Change Conference will begin in Copenhagen in December...

COUNTDOWN TO COPENHAGEN : United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

COPENHAGEN : SEAL THE DEAL : UN Worldwidewide Campaign on Climate Change

It's just a first step, but an important first step..... A new Climate Change Mitigation Framework of the Kyoto Protocol will be ratifiied and agree to.....And this time, The US is on board to sign it...

So, yes, the debate is pretty much over, dispite what many people here want to believe...

Now if only we can also focus attention on the other related and huge looming problem, one that is more immediate and will impact us much sooner, PEAK OIL , something the Climate Change deniers probably also deny as well....

[scottyd]

Narachon how did you get a picture of me? Are you following me?

[JR Texas]

Narachon how did you get a picture of me? Are you following me?

Thought was a picture of teabags in a tree.........huuummmm.

Anyway, this is interesting and concerns this person, Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, who TeaTree says is a respectable scientists doing fair and balanced research.........turns out Dr. Khandekar is a member of FoS:

The Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1]

In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. [2] [3] The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of Desmogblog.com, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper's role in FoS funding. [4] [5]

In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science "had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change" and had returned unspent grant money on September 10, 2007, according to a Calgary Foundation statement.[6]

For those who would like to look up the lunatics behind the global warming is a conspiracy propaganda machine, go here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

[ronz28]

104 degrees F. here in Austin, Texas today and that's 66 days over 100 degrees F. since June 1. That breaks records back to 1929. Tomorrow with forecasts of over 100 we should tie the longest known heat wave tieing the record back in 1923. After that. we will be in new territory and you might say we will have proof of global warming here along with our mandatory water restrictions due to the drought that has caused a 58% drop in our water storage reservoir lakes. You must pay a fine of $450 if you get caught watering your grass with a sprinkler more than the certain one day a week permitted or between the hours of 10AM and 7PM on that one day.

Edited August 27, 2009 by ronz28