sad sad sad

[canuck]

today's Mt Baker snow report!!!!

http://www.mtbaker.us/snow_report/report_fs.html



eeeeks

[NoKnees]

Quite sad... Mother nature is a moody biatch...

[Tantrum]

But we'll make up for it in Feb. just in time for our corporate snow day at Keystone.:D

[CanariaChick]

Man, this is by far the warmest winter, I've ever lived through in Seattle. I don't think I can recall a month of January before, in which at 8 am, I could be strolling to work under the sun, and wearing a t-shirt! I mean, usually, by this time in winter my down jacket is cacked into my body as a natural layer of my skin.

Last weekend I was suppossed to be in Baker doing the TA gig for the Avalanche Awareness classes, but unless we were to bury the practice beacons under the rocks, there was not much snow to dig. Imagine doing snowpack analysis... it's crazy, this is (or was) the mountain with the world's highest snowfall record! Even the Legendary Banked Slalom has been postponed...

All the local hills are closed due to lack of snow, but hey! my season pass is now good at NorthStar and Sierra in Tahoe, woo...hoo...? :confused:

But hey, you know we can always count on the US oil lobby to hold our interests above their economic gain (you know, like they do with our kids in Iraq), as they play down the threat of climate change and derail action to cut greenhouse gas emissions (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1399383,00.html), they care about us sooo much! I am touched, that they would go to such great lengths as to sabotage international efforts...

[TBone]

Come to CO? ;)

Better yet, go to Tahoe.

T

[Ripzalot]

But hey, you know we can always count on the US oil lobby to hold our interests above their economic gain (you know, like they do with our kids in Iraq), as they play down the threat of climate change and derail action to cut greenhouse gas emissions (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1399383,00.html), they care about us sooo much! I am touched, that they would go to such great lengths as to sabotage international efforts...

Good Lord. :rolleyes:


The danger is hot air, not global warming (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/30/do3001.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/30/ixopinion.html)

Read the whole thing. It pretty much sums up the anti-global warming viewpoint.

[CanariaChick]

As much as you are entitled to believe climate change is not happening, so are others entitled to believe it is (specially if research increasingly supports their claim), and act according to their belief within their nations (and partnering with other nations that feel likewise) to address what they consider to be a serious problem. Now, nobody is forcing the US to join Kyoto, nor do I believe it's the holy grail of environmental sustainability, but it would be nice if, at least the US oil lobby respected international efforts, instead of undermining and sabotaging them, since we can argue that wether it will manage to slow down temperature increases or not, it would still be nice to encourage efficiency, invest in renewables, reign in pollution and reduce its effects on the population which go beyond disruption of weather patterns.

But then again, that is just my perspective as a parent who is increasingly concerned by the legacy we are leaving our kids with, I'll be frank, my concerns are not the same as those of the US oil lobby (and I'm not even getting a check to say this, darn it).

BTW, Did I mention that I'm going back to my old alma matter next semester? You are going to get a kick out of this: International Cooperation for Sustainable Development.
Just my cup of tea, won't you agree? ;)

P.S.> I want you to know that I do appreciate your viewpoint, and I'm actually looking forward to meeting you for boarding when I'm back on that side of the pond, because I think face to face, our arguments can be a bit more light hearted.

[Ripzalot]

As much as you are entitled to believe climate change is not happening, so are others entitled to believe it is (specially if research increasingly supports their claim), and act according to their belief within their nations (and partnering with other nations that feel likewise) to address what they consider to be a serious problem. Now, nobody is forcing the US to join Kyoto, nor do I believe it's the holy grail of environmental sustainability, but it would be nice if, at least the US oil lobby respected international efforts, instead of undermining and sabotaging them, since we can argue that wether it will manage to slow down temperature increases or not, it would still be nice to encourage efficiency, invest in renewables, reign in pollution and reduce its effects on the population which go beyond disruption of weather patterns.

But then again, that is just my perspective as a parent who is increasingly concerned by the legacy we are leaving our kids with, I'll be frank, my concerns are not the same as those of the US oil lobby (and I'm not even getting a check to say this, darn it).

BTW, Did I mention that I'm going back to my old alma matter next semester? You are going to get a kick out of this: International Cooperation for Sustainable Development.
Just my cup of tea, won't you agree? ;)

P.S.> I want you to know that I do appreciate your viewpoint, and I'm actually looking forward to meeting you for boarding when I'm back on that side of the pond, because I think face to face, our arguments can be a bit more light hearted.

i never said that climate change wasn't happening - au contraire - climate change has ALWAYS been occurring. whether these later years are attributable to man-made GHG emissions (and whether this is a short-term or long term trend) is the question - and where the belief comes into play.

i don't think the US oil lobby is wrong in countering the (dis)information being spun by over zealous environmentalists. true, the US oil industry has paid scientists to help them squash the (man-made) global warming theory. but perhaps this is a legitimate response to the distorted data put out by the environmentalists and the mainstream media who lap it up as fact. the media continuously re-chants the global warming mantra every time there is a weather disaster. you yourself fall into that trap by lamenting about global warming and drawing a cause-effect relationship with this year's warm trend with the PNW. this is how myth permeates conventional wisdom. this is what the media has done to the public.

not everyone is being paid to dismiss global warming theory. there are plenty of independent scientists, university professors and climatologists around the world who also dismiss it as BS, or at best speculative. there is so much controversy on the global warming subject that makes it impossible to definitively say that it is man-made or that there is even a problem. given that controversy, how much economic pain should we inflict on ourselves in order for the slight hope that we can reverse or stop global warming?

the earth has ALWAYS naturally oscillated back in forth in it's temperature, and it is extremely unlikely likely that we alone can stop it. we can't control natural GHG emissions such as forest fires and volcanoes. so why is it such a big deal to try to cap our man-made GHG emissions? what do we do if there comes another period of high volcanic activity? do we try to compensate by lowering our man-made emissions even further? of course not. we simply shrug our shoulders and move on and deal with it. same thing for man-made GHG emissions. we're trying to control something that is not controllable, that is naturally self regulating, and might not even be a problem! the earth recovered from its periods of high volcanic activity with CO2 levels 20 times that of today. animals lived and thrived during those times as well. there is no reason to suspect that it won't do so again with man-made GHG emissions, if that is even the reason for the supposed warming trend and if there is a long-term warming trend at all.

i'm not opposed to efficiency, renewables, etc., in fact i highly encourage it. these things just make practical sense. but i don't think that drastic measures are needed which may inhibit our economic growth and give unfair advantages to other countries. especially in light of the highly dubious information being presented as fact.

my 2 centimes...

hey, who said our conversations weren't light hearted? ;)

[CanariaChick]

Ok, but contrast motives first. Who benefits? The article you put forward, was an opinion piece by some Ross Clark dude, who last time I checked was not even a scientist to begin with, and then with a dismissive swat of the hand you call "(dis)information spun by over zealous environmentalists" when refering to the majority of scientists in the world community, that have reached similar conclusions, and that is that human actions are indeed having an effect, particularly because we can meassure a significant swing in data post industrial revolution. This is not "highly dubious information", it's existing data, here are some easy to read charts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_climate_change___evidence_and_predictions/html/1.stm) the only thing there is argument about, are the prediction models, simply because there are so many variables.

However, you do pose a very valid question, one that I think should be better understood, and that is "given that controversy, how much economic pain should we inflict on ourselves in order for the slight hope that we can reverse or stop global warming?" the reality is we will not be able to reverse or stop climate change, that would be too arrogant, or worse naive, for anyone to assume, however, what we can do is ameliorate the situation, rather than compound. We are at a point where we really need to come to terms with the reality that we only have one planet to live in (to date, unless Titan Moon sounds good to you), and that we ought to be better stewards of this unbelievable gift, which has given us so much, without ever asking a penny in return. It is about time, that instead of taking for granted, we consider investing in our planet's health, as valuable an investment as we'll ever make. Improving quality of life (which is not the same as quantity of stuff), does not have to be viewed as an economic pain, as more of us will benefit from it, as it's ramifications include our health, our nurishment, our security, our future, etc...

And for those who are only moved by financial results to see anything as worthwhile, there is economic gain in the equation, after all the principle of capitalism is to create a need to consume, so what if instead of creating a need to consume the stuff of nothingness, we saw the need to consume towards the common goal of a long term healthy planet, in a peculiar way, it's like globalized real state investment! :D (This is an oversimplified statement merely to provide you with a mental picture, don't jump on it, there's a lot more to it)

P.S.> What I meant by light hearted, is that these frugal comment exchanges are condensed and seem therefore exponentially intense, compared to how we are in our "real life" exchanges, in which this issue may be but a fraction, within all the other issues and complexities that are part of our daily lives.

[Ripzalot]

Ok, but contrast motives first. Who benefits? The article you put forward, was an opinion piece by some Ross Clark dude, who last time I checked was not even a scientist to begin with, and then with a dismissive swat of the hand you call "(dis)information spun by over zealous environmentalists" when refering to the majority of scientists in the world community, that have reached similar conclusions, and that is that human actions are indeed having an effect, particularly because we can meassure a significant swing in data post industrial revolution. This is not "highly dubious information", it's existing data, here are some easy to read charts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_climate_change___evidence_and_predictions/html/1.stm) the only thing there is argument about, are the prediction models, simply because there are so many variables.

However, you do pose a very valid question, one that I think should be better understood, and that is "given that controversy, how much economic pain should we inflict on ourselves in order for the slight hope that we can reverse or stop global warming?" the reality is we will not be able to reverse or stop climate change, that would be too arrogant, or worse naive, for anyone to assume, however, what we can do is ameliorate the situation, rather than compound. We are at a point where we really need to come to terms with the reality that we only have one planet to live in (to date, unless Titan Moon sounds good to you), and that we ought to be better stewards of this unbelievable gift, which has given us so much, without ever asking a penny in return. It is about time, that instead of taking for granted, we consider investing in our planet's health, as valuable an investment as we'll ever make. Improving quality of life (which is not the same as quantity of stuff), does not have to be viewed as an economic pain, as more of us will benefit from it, as it's ramifications include our health, our nurishment, our security, our future, etc...

And for those who are only moved by financial results to see anything as worthwhile, there is economic gain in the equation, after all the principle of capitalism is to create a need to consume, so what if instead of creating a need to consume the stuff of nothingness, we saw the need to consume towards the common goal of a long term healthy planet, in a peculiar way, it's like globalized real state investment! :D (This is an oversimplified statement merely to provide you with a mental picture, don't jump on it, there's a lot more to it)

P.S.> What I meant by light hearted, is that these frugal comment exchanges are condensed and seem therefore exponentially intense, compared to how we are in our "real life" exchanges, in which this issue may be but a fraction, within all the other issues and complexities that are part of our daily lives.

i know the article was an opinion piece. i merely said that it sums up the anti-AGW (anthropomorphic or "man-made" global warming) view nicely. not to be taken as absolute authority on the subject. and yes, i'm dismissive because i have read lots of articles and books and realize the flaws in the data being presented.

"majority of scientists in the world community" - your belief or fact? please show me the survey that supports this. even better, include where their fundings come from. fyi, here is how the game is played: write a paper on how bad AGW is, get attention in the media (because the media already believes in AGW), rake in fundings from enviro orgs, repeat. meanwhile, anti-AGW scientists are discredited because they get funding from the oil lobby or the US government. what's up with that?

your easy-to-read chart is EXACTLY the kind of disinformation i am talking about. you take a very tiny snippet of the historical record and make the hasty conclusion that increased CO2 is solely responsible for the warming trend. there is much to argue about in that chart presented and charts like that. for example, how do you explain the run up in temp through the 1940s, BEFORE the vast majority of man-made GHG emissions? and how do you explain the cooling period in your chart from 1945-1980 when CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly? what's up with that?

the fact is the earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is presently, and all without the intervention of man-made GHG emissions. the last ice age ended about 18,000 years ago and the earth has steadily been getting warmer. we had a "little ice age" that ended in the mid 1800s BEFORE the industrial revolution took off. what we are seeing now is a bounceback from that cool period. how much is attributable to AGW is pure speculation. about 12,500 years ago, the earth warmed 20F in about 50 years. this is 10 times the catastrophic warming that enviromentalists claim humans are causing. this confirms that the climate can change dramatically in a short period of time and can do absent human intervention. there is much in the historical record that demonstrates that your chart is nothing unusual. there are many other factors besides CO2 that influence the weather that are being overlooked, quite possibly deliberately.

so here is where it becomes political. Kyoto is a treaty designed to effect economies and would have no discernable (key word: discernable) effect on climate whatsoever. the USA takes the brunt of the economic impact while countries like China and India get a free pass. is that fair? should we (Americans) be enthusiatic about supporting such an agreement? why is the USA constantly demonized for it's reluctance to commit? how about a fair across the board treaty that affects all countries equally? there is big money on both sides of this issue. don't pretend that it's all just the USA and their oil lobby that is motivated by money.

as a AGW proponent, answer me these three questions:

what is the proper temperature for the earth?

are there any other factors besides C02 levels that affect climate? if so, how do you properly weight them with CO2 levels as influencing climate?

what evidence(s) do you have that there is a long-term warming trend?



P.S. verbosity is often viewed as intensity, when often it is not. often there is just a lot of information to convey! :)
yes, it would be a much different conversation face to face:

ripz: dude, i can't believe you fall for that global warming bs!
canaria: dude, everyone believes it!
ripz: not me. whatever. so let's rip up this huge powder bowl and see how it affects the climate.
canaria: lol! let's go.
ripz: but first let's release some CO2 and pollution into the atmosphere. puff puff. 'ere, take a hit!
canaria: puff puff *exhale*. damn i'm such a hypocrite!

:D

[NoKnees]

I just want to thank you guys for keeping me entertained. My beliefs fall somewhere between you guys so it's entertaining and enlightening being a spectator here.

In the meantime I'm contemplating if it'll be worth the 7-8 hours of driving this weekend for 6-7 hours of riding on, at best, dust on crust...

[CanariaChick]

ripz: dude, i can't believe you fall for that global warming bs!
canaria: dude, everyone believes it!
ripz: not me. whatever. so let's rip up this huge powder bowl and see how it affects the climate.
canaria: lol! let's go.
ripz: but first let's release some CO2 and pollution into the atmosphere. puff puff. 'ere, take a hit!
canaria: puff puff *exhale*. damn!

:D
Too funny! true...true...

But anyway, seen your interest in the subject, I'll provide you with several links to the scientific community behind this movement worldwide, many of them within the US too.

Anyway we got:

World Meteorological Organization (http://http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html) (WMO)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) (IPCC Independent World Org)
Hadley Centre for Climate Studies (http://www.metoffice.com/research/) (MET-UK Gov)
EPA Global Warming Page (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html) (US Gov)
Climate Impacts LINK Project (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link/) Climatic Research Unit, UEA

And a whole bunch others you can google, cause otherwise, I would spend all day linking:
British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Oak Ridge
Climate Diagnostics Center (NOAA-CIRES CDC), Boulder (source of NCEP/NCAR reanalyses and COADS)
Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre (BMRC), Melbourne
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma), Victoria
CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Melbourne
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum (DKRZ) (German Climate Research Centre), Hamburg
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), Princeton
NASA Goddard Insitute for Space Studies (GISS) Research, New York
Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique du CNRS (LMD), Paris
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI), Hamburg
MIT Center for Global Change Science Climate Modeling Initiative
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Boulder
UK universities Global Atmospheric Modelling Programme (UGAMP)
AMIP (Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project)
CLIVAR (Climate Variability and Predictability)
CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project)
EuroCLIVAR (an EC-funded project supporting CLIVAR in Europe)
OCMIP (Ocean Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project)
PCMDI (Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
PMIP (Palæoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project)
Blah, blah, blah... ;)

Kyoto is a treaty designed to effect economies and would have no discernable (key word: discernable) effect on climate whatsoever. the USA takes the brunt of the economic impact while countries like China and India get a free pass. is that fair? how about a fair across the board treaty that affects all countries equally? You wish everyone got the same? what are you, a commie? lol, just kidding. But seriously though, how fair would it be to place the world's superpower and top economy, responsible for 36% of the developed world emissions, on the same footing as developing nations. However, what Kyoto does provide are incentives to invest not only on your nation's infrastructure, but also on those developing nations through renewables and efficient industrial models, which then become emmissions credits for the developed nation that built the infrastructure.

should we (Americans) be enthusiatic about supporting such an agreement? I don't know how enthusiastic you ought to be, but my guess is that a little bit more enthusiasm than the day your kid gets drafted to go secure natural resources in a 3rd world country?

why is the USA constantly demonized for it's reluctance to commit? Newsflash, reluctance to commit is not what has demonized the USA, but the fact that while it doesn't want to join in the world community, it won't give up undermining and sabotaging international efforts. We are moving on, with or without you, just let us work.

what is the proper temperature for the earth? The question is not so much the proper temperature for the Earth, as it is proper temperature for us to survive. Planet Earth can go on a lot longer than us.

are there any other factors besides C02 levels that affect climate? if so, how do you properly weight them with CO2 levels as influencing climate? There are, it is called The Greenhouse effect and the Carbon Cycle (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/)

what evidence(s) do you have that there is a long-term warming trend? My crystal ball says so? lol, actually, what we have is Current Evidence (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2904.php) and Future Effects (http://http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2905.php). The future is uncertain young man, to become evidence, it must unfortunately, become past.

OK, so riding that bowl would sound fantastic to me, right about now... but since we don't have any snow in the PNW, please go riding this weekend, take lots of photos, so that I can ride vicariously through you, pretty please? :)

[jibnot]

I’ll feel bad for the PNW. I almost moved there but luckily I had a vision from the lord that told me to move to the holly land and become a mass breeder of many children with multiple sex partners.

The only problem is that I have to wipe so much A$$ and manhandle my submissive and obedient wife’s.


Time to make some jello and wash my SUV, the neighbors don’t go to church on Sunday. I think I need to set up a camera and see what they are up to.


God bless America

[jibnot]

The power of prayer


Mt. Baker received 15 INCHES OF NEW SNOW SINCE YESTERDAY and 7 inches of new snow since last night which is enough to reopen the ski area with limited operation on Sunday February 6th at 9:00am.



God bless you all and be modest, you will be rewarded

[Ripzalot]

Too funny! true...true...

But anyway, seen your interest in the subject, I'll provide you with several links to the scientific community behind this movement worldwide, many of them within the US too.

Anyway we got:
...
Blah, blah, blah... ;)


it's funny (and a bit ironic) how you now cite a whole slew of government bureaucracies to support AGW theory. what makes you think that their research is any more unbiased than that of the oil industry? all their action is driven by political pressure. but ok, i'll go through some of these and see what is being said (it may take a while).

Michael Crichton says that aliens cause global warming (not really, just a clever title). He nails the entire issue on the head. The article is a must-read. There is too much to quote here. Read the whole thing. It goes on into the delusion that consensus mean scientific fact, which seems to be the same track you are on.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

here's one very interesting quote from the article, from one of your supporting orgs:

"The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."

hmm. what's up with that? yet another coverup by the main proponent of this faith-based belief. here's some more interesting statements from AGW proponenets:

the "father of global warming", James Hansen of NASA, has backtracked from his famous 1988 opinion and now supports the anti-AGW position that global warming is much less dire than AGW supporters believe. in his last paper in 1998 he wrote that "we predict an additional warming in the next 50 years of 3/4 plus or minus 1/4 degree Centigrade". this a huge deviation from his original paper that said "absent a sharp and immediate reduction in the level of CO2 emissions, the earth will warm a further 0.8 degrees to 3.5 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years." he said he was 99% sure at the time. unfortunately, the AGW supporters STILL use his 1988 opinion and numbers today.

in 1988 Hanson made the following statement to congress at a hearing: "Global warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect." this statement made all the headlines and national tv coverage. yet in the January 1992 issue of Science magazine he admitted admissions other than CO2 have cancelled any global warming effect and that his earlier statement was wrong.
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba299.html

Hansen's partner, Stephen Schneider (who invented the original climate computer models) said this: "We have to offer up scary scenarios make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=95

along the same lines, this is what Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, said:
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true...You are what the media define you to be. (Greenpeace) became a myth and a myth-generating machine."
http://www.suanews.com/articles/1992/envirotruthmissfactor0792.htm

yow. what's up with that?



Kyoto is a treaty designed to effect economies and would have no discernable (key word: discernable) effect on climate whatsoever. the USA takes the brunt of the economic impact while countries like China and India get a free pass. is that fair? how about a fair across the board treaty that affects all countries equally? You wish everyone got the same? what are you, a commie? lol, just kidding. But seriously though, how fair would it be to place the world's superpower and top economy, responsible for 36% of the developed world emissions, on the same footing as developing nations. However, what Kyoto does provide are incentives to invest not only on your nation's infrastructure, but also on those developing nations through renewables and efficient industrial models, which then become emmissions credits for the developed nation that built the infrastructure.

should we (Americans) be enthusiatic about supporting such an agreement? I don't know how enthusiastic you ought to be, but my guess is that a little bit more enthusiasm than the day your kid gets drafted to go secure natural resources in a 3rd world country?

why is the USA constantly demonized for it's reluctance to commit? Newsflash, reluctance to commit is not what has demonized the USA, but the fact that while it doesn't want to join in the world community, it won't give up undermining and sabotaging international efforts. We are moving on, with or without you, just let us work.


these are the obvious political answers that ensue. "World consensus right! USA always wrong!" Blah blah blah. So it's ok to give China and India free passes just because they are considered "developing"? they both have nuclear missiles. It hardly seems fair to classify them as "developing". again, refer to the article by Michael Crichton regarding consensus.



what is the proper temperature for the earth? The question is not so much the proper temperature for the Earth, as it is proper temperature for us to survive. Planet Earth can go on a lot longer than us.


humans have been surviving conditions much hotter and much colder than today. the folly is that AGW proponents seem to think only a static future climate is acceptable. the truth is that the earth's climate has NEVER been static and even with all the suggested efforts made there is no discernable way to know if you are having an effect. in this regard, it is a faith-based belief.

the fact is that the planet has been self-regulating it's climate for eons. life has existed on earth for millions of years and without this self-regulation we would all be extinct already. we know from the fossil record that neither a catastrophic hot or cold extreme has ever existed. and we know that there have been times of volcanic activity with C02 output 20 TIMES that of today. yet we are still here.

and what is so special about 1990 emission levels? this is an arbitrary standard set by Kyoto. how do we know that this level isn't 10 times more than that of the actual "crisis" level? or perhaps it's 10 times below? maybe we have the excess capacity to increase levels 100 fold without even knowing it? all that economic prosperity would be artifically limited by a bogus treaty. but economic prosperity isn't important to the environmentalists. maintaining a "feel good" policy is much more important. right?



are there any other factors besides C02 levels that affect climate? if so, how do you properly weight them with CO2 levels as influencing climate? There are, it is called The Greenhouse effect and the Carbon Cycle (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/)


you sent me to the home page. i can't find where they take into account all the other possible climate affecting variables. it seems that AGW proponents only focus on the carbon cycle. what's up with that?



what evidence(s) do you have that there is a long-term warming trend? My crystal ball says so? lol, actually, what we have is Current Evidence (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2904.php) and Future Effects (http://http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2905.php). The future is uncertain young man, to become evidence, it must unfortunately, become past.


and that first site goes directly into the spurious claims of the AGW proponents - linking every recent weather phenomenon as evidence of AGW. they deny the historical record and the fact that all of these weather events have occurred in the past without the intervention of humans. and the future events - not one is new. all have occurred in the past without the intervention of humans. some anti-AGW anecdotal evidence for you:

-the arctic was just as warm in the 1930s
-greenland was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today
-recent glacier melt in Iceland has revealed land that had been farmed hundreds of years ago (it is still not warm enough to farm this land today)
-most of the antarctic has been cooling for the last 40 years, only the northern end of the arctic peninsula has warmed significantly in the last decade in a fashion that is not at all what one would expect from AGW, but exactly what one would expect from a shift in pacific ocean currents (the pacific decadal oscillation)

for every recent event attributable to global warming you can find another event that contradicts it (if you look for it).

------------------------

i can tell from your responses that you have invested little, if any, investigation into the anti-AGW evidence. perhaps this is intentional as it may conflict with your political views. i would highly suggest that you do a little research on the other side before you invest too much of your life crusading against a myth. some suggested reading:

The Skeptical Environmentalist
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521010683/ref=pd_sim_b_1/103-8137975-8834217?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

The Satanic Gases
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1882577922/qid=1107775141/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-8137975-8834217

Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/103-8137975-8834217?v=glance&s=books&st=*

[Rampage]

:D I think there is something we need to realize folks. No matter how different our views may be, Mother Nature is far more destructive than man. After all, Mt St Helens did more damage to the atmosphere in a matter of days than man had done in a decade. There is truth to both sides of the global warming, but so long as either side has an agenda, it seems we (the not so scientifically savvy) may never really know the true depth of things. I remember tons of speeches in college from both sides of the spectrum. I tried to desperately form my own opinion, but neither side had any common views from which to build a basis of truth. There were people of commandable stature on both sides, but I too believe the truth to be somewhere in between. I remember the whole Antarctica fiasco. Everyone tried to blame a part of it's shelf falling on Global Warming. But then they did some deep scans of the shelves and found them to be multiple pieces of glacier, instead of one solid piece. So it was just a matter of time before parts of it gave way. We are just at the beginning of understanding the world scientifically, and too many people are jumping to conclusions based on belief and less on fact. But everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.