I did follow your links (thanks for those). I won’t pretend to understand in detail the graphs. I will only make one observation for now. It’s my observation much of the time (not all, but definitely much) when you read about global warming (being caused by man) you see references to economics. For example, on the Answers page link you provided it says: “The A2 scenario is characterized by a politically and socially diverse world that exhibits sustained economic growth but does not address the inequities between rich and poor nations, and takes no special actions to combat global warming or environmental change issues.”

Did you catch that “inequities between rich and poor nations.” This kind of language, to us conservatives, is code words for socialism. Part and parcel of the global warming debate is that we must “fix it” via imposing strict laws on the freedoms of people. America is great because she is free. I am deeply suspicious of a “scientific” movement that demands stripping people in countries like the US of their freedoms. That is one of the things that disturbs me about the global warming movement. It seems to me it’s more about socialism (enforcing behaviors, limiting freedoms) than it is about saving the planet.

Again, thanks for posting.

- Jim

Back when they were talking about global cooling, so-called ’super computers’ were less powerful than the computers sitting on our desks right now. The science of super computer climate modeling was in it’s infancy as was the science of obtaining ice core data. Has global warming occured before? Certainly, but not on the scale it is happening today since man has been around in the past 2.5 million years – a blink of an eye in geologic time. 55 million years ago, the planet warmed several degrees over a few thousand years melting the arctic and causing mass extinction in a period called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Volcanic activity may have been a factor and some suggest a massive asteroid or comet impact could have also triggered the episode. It doesn’t take much to upset the earth’s co2 balance. Again, such mass extinctions were caused by a global rise in temp of between 5 and 8 degrees C over 2000 years or so. The present rise of 1 degree in just 100 years IS very significant and the ramifications are being seen in the arctic today. Computer models from 8 different climate labs from Japan, Australia, Germany the US, the UK, show tempurature projections that indicate a warming event not unlike the PETM. Quite simply the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is greater now than at anytime since the advent of the human species as we know it. And we know unequivocally that the more the CO2, the warmer the planet. As the PETM was caused by massive volcanism or earth impact, the present unprecedented CO2 rise mirrors exactly the rise in fossil fuel burning. No coincidence. It took the earth 80,000 years to recover from the PETM warming event. The question is, can we do anything about it? Unlike most activists on this issue, I personally doubt it. The tipping point has already likely been reached. But don’t worry gramps, we’ll all be dead by the time these drastic effects impact most humans. Just forget about politics. Forget about what Al Gore says, what the ‘Bushcult 30%ers’ tell you. Just look at the science.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_Rgqz8UD5Vb8/Rm9PY6auZcI/AAAAAAAAATA/yDClRheCy34/s1600-h/co2+levels+400K+years+copy.jpg
http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming-predictions-png

On the issue of global warming, perhaps we can agree on one thing: The earth may indeed be warming just a bit (although I’m skeptical of even that as I’m not sure how one measures a global average temperature). But for the sake of argument, let me concede the point that the earth’s overall average temperature has warmed 0.6 C in the past 100 years. Let’s further say this increase in temperature is now accelerating over the last, say, 25 years. The debate should center around what is causing that warming, correct?

You contend it is activity by humans producing an overabundance of CO2, particularly activity in the United States, and in countries like China and India. And that most of this activity comes from large industrial plants burning coal and oil, and from automobiles burning gas and diesel. This may be an over-simplification, so if I’ve missed something, feel free to correct me.

And so your proposed solution, based on the theory (not yet proven fact) that man is the source of most CO2 pollution, is to forcibly regulate man’s activities in order to “save the planet” from a horrible (some might say apocalyptic) end result.

Enter those of us on the other side of this issue. We believe that although CO2 may be on the increase, it is not a foregone conclusion that it is all due to mankind’s activity. Furthermore, we question whether or not CO2 is indeed the key reason or source of the increase in temperature on the earth. It may play a part, but is it the main or key cause of a temperature rising? Finally, I’ve not yet heard explanations from those who believe global warming is man-made as to what role the sun may play in all of this. In particular, why the polar caps on Mars are retreating as are our polar caps. It does not take a genius, nor a scientist, to start connecting some dots as to why there may be a slight rise in temperatures–the sun, the largest generator of radiation and heat in our part of the galaxy.

Neither do global warming proponents seem to take into account natural cycles that may last 50 or 100 years or even longer, nor the fact that accurate measurements of temperature have only been scientifically taken for perhaps the last 50-75 years, and prior to that the instrumentation and the methods used to measure it were not as rigorous as they are today. It seems to me global warming proponents are using data that is not accurate to support a claim that is the equivalent of a 911 call and when someone says “wait a minute, let’s look at this carefully” that person or movement is chided and made fun of and accused of being blind and ignorant to the so-called “facts”.

Au contraire! There are many credible, earnest, legitimate scientists who take issue with the global warming hysteria — “the sky is falling” — that is taking place. The latest tactic, as I’ve pointed out in my posting, is to declare the debate “over” and now action must be taken–immediately–or the earth will be in a peril it cannot recover from. This is nonsensical.

I’m not an expert on global warming, nor do I pretend to be one. In some respects I suppose I “parrot” what I have heard others say about this issue. I try to keep an open mind, and I think about it. What makes sense? Good old common sense is an excellent guide on such matters.

William, thanks again for posting. I hope you will continue to post and “keep me honest” in my opinions.

- Jim Willis

Remember all the bogus hype the press fed to us continously in l999 about Y2K, all of which turned out to be bullroar?

Global warming is the same type of hype.
And now it appears that the data they use is compromised.

See my linked story today:
http://catskillcommentator.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/global-warming-shocker-whos-minding-thermometers/

All the best,

Roger Thornhill
http://www.commentator.vze.com