KLB

I always wonder about debates and/or positions that dismiss peer reviewed reports like those from the IPCC while embracing Wikipedia and other non-peer reviewed sources as gospel. As others have said, if global warming was so easy to disprove that it could be done with a couple of mathematical by "laypersons" in a forum like this, wouldn't it have been disproven ages ago by the thousands upon thousands of scientists and researches who have been looking at this issue?

And who was criticizing the use of smear tactics? Labeling someone an extremist is an unprovable effort to smear and discredit other people's stance. Why don't you start practicing what you preached to me.

Another way to think about it is that the total amount of greenhouse gases would increase as relative percentage of the atmosphere. Think of it this way, if you have six inches of highly efficient foam insulation in your attic and then add six inches of low efficiency fiberglass insulation in your attic, while the percentage of insulation that is foam insulation goes down, the total amount of insulation increases thus increasing the total heat retention capabilities of the attic. While I'm not sure I could successfully find a peer reviewed paper on it, one should ask the following question. When we burn fossil carbon, we are getting the carbon in the CO2 from sequestered sources, but where does the oxygen come from? For every atom of carbon that is released from fossil fuels, two atoms of oxygen must come from somewhere to produce that CO2. The source of that oxygen is the atmosphere. It would be entirely reasonable to expect that as the total number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere increases from the burning of fossil fuels, the total number of O2 molecules in the environment would decrease by the exact same amount (1 C + 1 O2 = 1 CO2). So in the end, one would expect the total amount of O2 in the atmosphere to decrease as the CO2 increases from the burning of fossil fuels (lets just hope that O2 doesn't drop below 19.5%).

I am concentrating on the science or more appropriately stated the lack there of. I am not smearing you or others here. I am not smearing respectable scientists. I am raising the issue of the intentional planting of fraudulent science into this issue. This is as valid of a concern in this discussion as any. The problem for GW deniers is that it is very highly inconvenient because it casts a dark shadow of doubt over the reports GW deniers rely upon to support their side of the issue. The attempt to silence me isn't about the smearing of respectable scientists it is about not having to address the fact that much of the information that GW deniers rely upon was manufactured and planted to sow disinformation. I will not go away on this issue. It is too important. We can not hold good scientific debates when one side is using fraudulent data. I might also note that there has been no reservations by GW deniers to dismiss ANY scientific institution that is inconvenient to them. This includes the IPCC and their reports, which are the most heavily peer reviewed documents in this entire issue. You can not have it both ways. Look if you want to be a GW denier, and stick your head in the sand, I don't care, but there are many people out there who are not sure what to believe and they need to know what the motivation is behind the reports that try to sow doubt about climate change.

Is it truly nasty to ask pointed questions? This isn't about blind smear campaign to discredit other opinions. This is about questioning the validity of the research being presented. ExxonMobil has depended upon people not questioning the motivations behind reports. They also depended upon good people like members in this forum innocently repeating and/or citing fraudulent reports that have been planted via ExxonMobil's proxies to help those reports gain credibility. This is NO DIFFERENT than what the cigarette industry did and as the UCS report showed this is not accidental. ExxonMobil intentionally borrowed the cigarette industry's playbook on disinformation. How many fewer people would have died if people had been more vigilant about removing the fraudulent cigarette industry planted disinformation from the public debate over cigarette smoking? The cigarette industry's own papers, documents and memos proved that the cigarette industry knew that it was putting out false data and it was done because of corporate greed. It has been documented that many of the key players in the cigarette industry's efforts to sow disinformation over the science of the dangers of cigarette smoking are the exact same players who have been playing key roles in the effort to manufacture debate over climate change. It is well documented that these players intentionally sowed disinformation to manufacture debate over cigarette smoking and they knew the information was fraudulent. How can we say that we should trust these sources today on the issue of climate change? Smearing good people because one doesn't agree with them is not a sound means of debate and discussion. HOWEVER, this does not mean we should not question and disclose those who are INTENTIONALLY spreading disinformation as has been done for ExxonMobil and the cigarette industry. ALL I have been doing is finding and referencing reports that not only draw the connections between the research and ExxonMobil, but have also documented the intentional effort to spread disinformation. This is an incredibly important part of this debate.

It is only reason it distasteful to you is that the evidence I am providing is totally invalidating the foundation upon the evidence that GW deniers use to press their case. What I have presented shows that much of the the most cited skeptical climate change research is nothing more than a cynical attempt by ExxonMobil to confuse the issue of climate change. We can not debate science when part of the debate is founded upon flawed "research" that was planted to sow confusion. None of us have the research capability to go through every bit of the GW skeptic references to figure out A) what is legitimate peer reviewed research and B) to go through the reports item by item to find their logic flaws. If you think UCS report is flawed, then prove how they drew the wrong conclusions from the money trail AND interrelationships between the organizations that are pressing the case against climate change the hardest. It would have been nice to have a good debate based on solid science. Unfortunately, due to ExxonMobil's attempt to sow disinformation, the only way this can happen is is to strictly rely on scientific papers that have been peer reviewed and published by highly respected scientific organizations. Everything else must be deemed to be suspect. This pretty much invalidates all evidence that the GW deniers have presented in this thread to date. Normally we could rely on reports that summarize scientific papers and carry on a lively debate but in this case we can not trust anything that is not strictly peer reviewed through rigorous and completely transparent peer reviewed processes. This virtually eliminates all papers and references skeptical of climate change.

ParanoiaA read the UCS report. It details that this isn't just a bias (which wouldn't be a "sin"), it has been a concerted and organized effort to spread disinformation and bad science to manufacture debate. Yes the report is really long, but it is front loaded such that one doesn't have to read every single page to see the key arguments and evidence. While I always suspected that there was some efforts by the fossil fuel industries, to fund research skeptical of climate change, prior to my researching this issue as a result of this discussion I had no idea that there was a concerted effort to manufacture disinformation to sow debate where the debate is over. The real tragedy of this is that there are probably some very sincere and very diligent scientists out there who still doubt the science of climate change or at least want to preform the duty of diligent watchdog. The problem is how are we to know who is the diligent skeptical researcher and who is intentionally sowing disinformation at the behest of those like ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil has done a tremendous disservice to the entire debate out of their own shortsighted self interests. It is interesting to note that while initially some of the other oil giants were also skeptical of the science surrounding climate change, ExxonMobil really seems to have been the leader in the disinformation efforts and in fact the other oil companies, who also stood to lose a lot over the climate change issue have accepted the science and began to move forward to find solutions. Even Ford, who stands to be burdened with lots of regulations as a result of any effort to curb greenhouse gases has accepted the science of climate change.

I can not go and republish 69 pages of report in this thread to prove the point, I can only make the association. You must read the 69 page UCS report on this as well as follow the other sources I have provided. The information is there and it is painstakingly detailed. This is a red herring. It does when you look for the motivation and follow all of the trails provided to you. There has been a very concerted effort to disinform the public on this issue just as there was was over the tobacco issue. In the case of the tobacco issue, once the tobacco industry papers were finally brought to light it was proven that they were knowingly manufacturing bad data and passing it off as legitimate science to sow doubt over the health risks of smoking. Then ExxonMobil turned around and employed the very same people via the very same organizations to sow disinformation on the issue of climate change. I can't help it if you won't read the UCS report, but all of the evidence is in that report. The PBS Frontline report only helps to reinforce what the UCS is reporting. The UCS report I cited does exactly this by showing how the primary GW skeptics reports were manufactured.

Every one of the money trails is documented facts. The UCS and other sources have gone to great lengths to document their sources of information, which often times comes from the organizations own tax filings. The truth may lay with the science, but much of what is being used to support GW skeptics arguments is not science. That is the point many of the "science" being pushed the most by GW skeptics isn't science at all. As myself and most everyone here is really no more than a layperson when it comes to the research being used to support the various claims, we are in no position to refute the validity of the "data" being presented. ExxonMobil knows this and they have made a very concerted effort via their proxies to manufacture false scientific data and then get it published and cited by countless proxy organizations such that the public (you and I) get the impression that it the information is based on sound science. Thus they are able to sow doubt and debate where among the true scientific community that is researching this issue there is no longer any debate. Normally I would agree with you, but in this case it is important to document the fact that it isn't science that we are trying to beat, rather a very concerted and organized campaign of disinformation. ExxonMobil's goal was to manufacture disinformation, which was spread as "valid debate" so as to distract the public and force scientists to refute the manufactured science as a means of derailing or at least delaying public policy that actually takes action on the issue of global warming. By debating the bad science on the terms you are proposing, we are doing exactly what ExxonMobil wants, where as we need to be rooting out the sources of the false information such that that information can be isolated from the debate. This is what the UCS was doing in their report. If there was good science being brought by both sides I would agree.

SkepticLance, Close yourself off to the truth if you want. It is further evidence of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring inconvenient facts. The report isn't about muck raking it is about seeking the truth and disclosing to what lengths ExxonMobil was going to in their campaign to manufacture false debate and spread disinformation on the subject of climate change. Regardless of how inconvenient you find it, ExxonMobil's use of the tobacco industry's tactics is an incredibly important part of this discussion. As part of my researching for this discussion, I spent an incredible amount of time over the past couple of days digging up articles that chase down the money trail and interconnected relationships among the most vocal GW skeptics. In addition to referencing some of my findings here, a also posted a detailed blog entry on some of my more notable findings under the title: "Who is funding climate change skeptics?" A couple of highlights in that blog post, which I have not yet mentioned here comes from the PBS Frontline report "". The most damning connection they made was with leading climate change skeptic Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. He is a physicist who worked as a paid consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company from the late 1970s to late 1980s and has been Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, and served on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (both organizations have been funded by ExxonMobil). I don't know about others, but I think knowing that a leading climate change skeptic who's work gets referenced frequently was also an important player in the tobacco industry's efforts to discredit the science behind smoking is a very important piece of information in this debate. On a slightly different note in relation to ExxonMobil, the Boston Globe is reporting that ExxonMobil has been reevaluating their position on the issue of climate change since the release of IPCC's Feb. 2nd report. According to the Boston Globe, ExxonMobil's chief executive, Rex W. Tillerson, has acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and industry are factors in global warming. Very interesting. (see: http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/02/15/debate_over_global_warming_is_shifting/)

This is such a great misdirection of the issue. There is no question that there are times in earth's history that it was both much, much colder and much much hotter than it is today. This, however, is totally irrelevant to the main debate about global warming because human society did not exist during those times. What we care about is how the climate has changed in the last five-hundred years and how fast it is changing today than it was two-hundred years ago. The fact of the matter is that the rate at which CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere has been accelerating within the last century as has been the rate at which the earth's climates have been warming. Just like human civilizations would not fair well if the climate cooled by 10C, it also would not fair well if the climate warmed by 10C. Our reason for wanting to stop global warming (e.g. lock the climate temperatures to what they are currently) is so that the world's climates remain within a nice stable range that is optimal for our civilizations.

First it is the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which is a VERY HIGHLY RESPECTED scientific organization; not "UCC" or "ICC". Second, how convenient to to cry fowl about digging up muck when the muck that is being dug up paints one's position in a poor light. I've seen no reluctance on the side of GW deniers to dismiss and throw mud at those scientists, organizations and reports that support climate change (e.g. you just now with the UCS, the IPCC, etc.). GW skeptics have been trying to claim that the science behind global warming is wrong using flawed studies and then have been attempting to bait the general lay person into proving them wrong. This is the same basic tactic that was deployed by the cigarette industry and is entirely disingenuous. The UCS report simply took the time to trace down the money trail and then look for the relationships behind the various organizations that are working the hardest to discredit the science behind climate change. What they found was that in many cases the money trail lead back to ExxonMobil and many of the front organizations not only shared some of the same staff members, but in some cases shared all of the same staff members. Furthermore, some of these organizations and staff members were the exact same ones deployed by the cigarette industry to discredit the scientific research that showed that smoking is hazardous to one's health. ExxonMobil's involvement is increadibly important. Not only are they involved in disseminating disinformation via their front organizations, but ExxonMobil has spent over sixty million dollars on lobbying efforts to undermine public policy including policy related to climate change. In fact, the report documents numerous instances where ExxonMobil was able to directly affect U.S. public policy on this matter via the Bush Administration. SkepticLance, of all people in this discussion you really need to read the UCS report and you need to familiarize yourself with whom the UCS is and what it is not. I can tell you that the UCS is not a political hatchet organization out to destroy the characters of those who disagree with their position (unlike some of the groups that ExxonMobil has funded). Here is some more reporting on the issue of who the prominent GW skeptics are and whom is funding them: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html (ties direct links between tobacco industry and ExxonMobil via GW skeptics who were funded by both) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html (PBS Frontline: The Doubters of Global Warming)

As 1veedo has pointed out, the report provides important scientific discussion to why many of the claims made in this thread against GW are wrong. At the same time, the report also shows that many of the climate change skeptics being routinely cited aren't even scientists at all and that many of the others that are have been paid off, which seriously compromises their credibility. The report goes to great trouble to show that many of the "papers" that are frequently cited to debunk climate change are not even peer reviewed and have been very carefully planted by ExxonMobil via its proxies to lead the general population to draw incorrect conclusions and to sow doubt about climate change. What ExxonMobil has been doing is no different than what the tobacco industry did. In fact, as the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reveals, often times ExxonMobil has used the exact same people and organizations that were involved with the tobacco industry's efforts to discredit the science surrounding the health risks of smoking. The credibility of the reports and the motives of those creating the reports is a very legitimate part of the debate because there is substantial evidence to show that there is intentional campaign of disinformation taking place on the part of those who want to discredit climate change. It should be noted that unlike talk radio hosts and political pundits, the Union of Concerned Scientists is not in the business of character assassination. The fact that the UCS went to the level of trouble they did in the report to detail what they see as scientific fraud and to chase down the money trail should speak volumes about the level of disinformation that is being spread to manufacture debate and disagreement over climate change. ==Added Comment== On the topic of character assassination; it should be noted that through their proxies, ExxonMobil has waged a very deliberate campaign of character assassination to discredit climate change scientists. It is in that report and one can read more about it at http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

I've been spending a great deal of time reading reports that follow the sources of money for prominent GW deniers and it should be no surprise that a massive amount of it traces back to ExxonMobil through a network of front organizations that include (but is not limited to): American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the International Policy Network, Frontiers of Freedom, Global Climate Science Team, Center for Science and Public Policy, George C. Marshall Institute, Chicago-based Heartland Institute, Tech Central Station, The Advancement of Sound Science Center, and Free Enterprise Education Institute (a.k.a. Free Enterprise Action Institute). While I have not yet compiled the list of "scientists" who benefited from ExxonMobil's campaign of disinformation and efforts to manufacturer false debate on the issue of global warming, I have recognized the names of some of the "scientists" who's papers have been cited in this thread. For those who are seeking the truth (I know the GW deniers will choose to ignore this), I would recommend reading the Union of Concerned Scientists report entitled: "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science". Currently I am on page 29 of this 69 page report and thus far it has very carefully detailed how the web of money and disinformation by GW deniers traces back to ExxonMobil. The report also provide very compelling reasons why some of the reports cited in this thread to help refute climate change are wrong and/or completely invalid. Of course I'm sure some GW denier will try and claim that the Union of Concerned Scientists is biased and an unreliable source just like they have tried to dismiss the IPCC.

Ummm??? Saw what??? Stopping global warming simply means eliminating our contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere such that the earth's temperatures stop getting warmer. Or more simply put, stopping the increase in average climate temperatures. This means the climate wouldn't be changing (at least because of man) and thus the climate conditions we see this year would be the same climate conditions we see ten years from now. Oh so I'm imagining that almost all of the major scientific institutions and organizations that have scientists researching disciplines related to climates and climate change have come out and stated that climate change is a very serious concern? Uh ya right. The vast majority of all scientific papers published on this issue in the past number of years have pointed to climate change and man's influence on it as a real concern and most well respected major science and research institutions have concluded that climate change is a real issue. The IPCC is simply the most visible front for this research. Yes there are climate change deniers, but they are not from major scientific institutions and very frequently economic conflicts of interest have been tied to those scientists as their funding trail has traced back to those corporate interests that have the most to gain by disproving or at least sowing doubt in climate change science (e.g. the West Virginia GW skeptic that I pointed out who was receiving substantial funding from a coal powered energy company). Quite to the contrary. The fossil fuel industry and those who depend upon our civilization being addicted to fossil fuels have everything to lose by society diversifying our energy sources and the implementation of stricter emissions/energy efficiency standards. They realize that if we build more efficient homes, drive more efficient vehicles and acquire our energy from renewable resources (e.g. solar panels on the roofs of our homes), we will be buying less energy from them and thus reducing the growth of their profits. For them disproving climate change is an important part of their being able to successfully lobby against stricter pollution control regulations on power plants and factories as well as the stricter enforcement of existing regulations. If stricter pollution control regulations are implemented and enforced, the coal industry will be forced to make radical changes to coal fired power plants and potentially be forced to shut down coal mines that produce the dirtiest coal. For these corporations, there are massive economic interest in doing everything possible to block stricter regulations including producing and funding bad science to disprove or sow doubt with climate change (as has been documented throughout this thread).

Okay, I'll put it this way, if we do not bring CO2 levels in the atmosphere under control such that we slow and then stop global warming, those things WILL happen. There is as close to scientific consensus on this finding as one is likely to find for ANY scientific theory. Is there 100% agreement on these findings? No there is not and it is rare that any scientific finding garners 100% support from all scientists. The point is, however, the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific institutions from around the world from different cultures and with different personal motivations have come to agreement on the issue of global warming and that man is the chief cause of it. While maybe not all GW skeptics have conflicts of interest on this issue, a very significant number of the most prominent GW skeptics have been exposed as having conflicts of interest on this issue. In that they are actually receiving funding from corporations that have the most to gain by disproving global warming. Earlier in this thread I provided documentation exposing some of those GW skeptics who are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry and their proxy "think tanks", organizations, etc.

It is all a matter of how you spin things to make them sound better. I agree. If we start to take action now, we can solve this problem without massive life disrupting changes. requiring car makers to increase the average MPG of cars and trucks by 10 mpg in 10 years (as currently proposed) isn't going to cause a massive disruption. People shifting to CFLs, LED and other high efficiency lighting sources is not going to disrupt life. Mandating minimum efficiency standards for new how construction and major renovations is not going to cause massive disruptions. Mandating tougher emissions controls on power plants and removing all subsidies from fossil fuel power generation projects so that said subsidies can be focused on alternative energies is not going to cause major societal disruptions. These are the types of things people are proposing we do in response to climate change. I haven't seen any serious proposals that we immediately shut down all coal fired power plants and immediately turn in our cars for bicycles and bus tokens (although for some people this would be a completely viable option) Very true, if all of a sudden we had the same atmosphere as the Carboniferous period (286-408 million years ago), there would be so much oxygen in the atmosphere (~33%) that every time one turned on a light they would be risking a spark that would cause an "explosion" and you could forget about smoking cigarettes simply lighting the match would be hazardous to your health. This isn't a matter of preventing climate change for environmental reasons, this is a matter that human society has become dependent upon the climatic conditions that have prevailed for the past 300-400 years (sea levels, weather patterns, temperatures, etc.). Global warming threatens to disrupt the delicate balance of conditions that our society is so dependent upon. If sea levels rise even six feet, millions of people will be displaced and billions (if not trillions) of dollars in infrastructure from cities to seaports will be lost. If weather patterns change tens of millions of acres of arable land could go fallow due to the lack of rainfall and wrong temperatures. This could leave millions of people without the ability to feed themselves. This is why we want to prevent climate change if at all possible.

Back to the early topic of financial incentives tainting scientific research there can be few places where the financial incentive to disprove global warming is greater than in West Virginia as so much of WV's economy and employment base is dependent upon coal mining. West Virginia coal mining facts http://www.wvminesafety.org/wvcoalfacts.htm The West Virginia Coal Industry provides about 40,000 direct jobs in WV West Virginia produces about 15 % of total coal production in the U.S. West Virginia leads the nation in underground coal production. West Virginia leads the nation in coal exports with over 50 million tons shipped to 23 countries. West Virginia Coal accounts for about 50% of US coal exports. Taxes paid by the coal industry and by utility companies that make electricity using West Virginia coal account for two-thirds, or over 60% of business taxes paid in WV. The coal industry pays approximately $70 million in property taxes annually. The Coal Severance Tax adds approximately $214 million into West Virginia's economy. The coal industry payroll is nearly $2 billion per year. Coal is responsible for more than $3.5 billion annually in the gross state product. Simply put the direct and indirect pressures upon a scientist in West Virginia to disprove global warming are absolutely phenomenal. Not only is his/her own economic interests at stake, but so are the economic interests of his/her friends, family and community. Under these conditions it is absolutely inconceivable that their research could remain untainted, objective or credible. Especially given the sheer scope of the conflict of interest I have detailed above. One of those scientists I mentioned is a West Virginia scientist. I don't know if there is a connection or not, but with some digging I might be able to find one. EXACTLY! One does not get rich being a research scientist. They do what they do because they love their work. Most scientists are driven by the search for the truth and a desire to better understand our world. Those who are driven by greed and/or money will leave the academic research arena and go to work for corporations.

Your logic is flawed. Like many people here and most people in the world I am not a PhD. I am a lay person. Any direct refuting I would do would be senseless because there is only so well I can understand the minute details of the science. This form of debating is simply a way for GW deniers to befuddle the lay person with misleading stats and figures that they can't possibly understand. What I see is the GW deniers taking advantage of this to try and muddy the waters and convince the masses that there is more debate on this issue than there is. What I know is that rarely in my life have I seen more work on an issue than with GW. I also know that every one of the most respected scientific institutions that have taken a stand on this issue have said climate change is a real issue and that man is the primary cause. They have provided compelling evidence that I see no reason to doubt. Given the sheer amount of research that has been done on this topic by so many scientists around the world and the fact that such a high percentage of them are in agreement on this matter. It seems highly dubious that the vast majority could be so wrong and that only a tiny minority of scientists have gotten this one right. Furthermore people claiming that GW is a giant conspiracy perpetuated by mainstream scientists is totally ridiculous Again given the sheer weight of evidence and research that has been conducted, I'd be stunned beyond disbelief if the vast majority of the scientific community got this so wrong. It just doesn't make any logical sense. What makes more sense is that the minority are making use of dubious science, misusing statistics or are failing to make proper correlations. Sure there is a possibility that the vast majority of scientists got it wrong, but that possibility is so remote in comparison to the probability that the minority is getting it wrong. Furthermore: 1) the consequences of inaction are extremely dire if the majority is correct, 2) the unnecessary costs of action are realitively low if the majority is wrong, 3) the side benefits would still be great even if the majority was wrong. As such there is little logical reason why we should not move forward with finding solutions to a problem that the vast majority of scientists have concluded is a very real and urgent danger. You don't read my threads do you? Twice I have posted a link and summary of the history of the study of greenhouse gases and global warming. To save you the trouble of digging through this thread, I will provide you with the details again: The very long history of studying greenhouse gases and global warming http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...013101808.html Highlights from above article: 1) Irish scientist John Tyndall establishes CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the 19th century. 2) British engineer Guy Callendar had compiled empirical evidence of CO2 released by fossil fuels was having a measurable affect on the earth's climates by the 1930's 3) Charles David Keeling implements a systematic monitoring program at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. By the 1960's he demonstrated conclusively that atmospheric carbon dioxide was steadily rising (President Bush awarded Keeling the National Medal of Science in 2002 for this work). 4) In a 1965 message to Congress President Lyndon Johnson stated: "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." 5) In 1966 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather and Climate Modification, headed by geophysicist Gordon MacDonald concluded that increased carbon dioxide might also lead to "inadvertent weather modification." Gordon MacDonald, later served on President Richard Nixon's Council on Environmental Quality. Over time I will work on uncovering more of the history of the study of global warming, but the noise factor on this issue is so high in search results that it is hard to find papers that look the history of this issue. By being a GW denier: Lobbying group offering scientists $10,000 for producing reports that cast doubt on global warming: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...004397,00.html Exxon Mobil funnel $16 million to groups and individuals to "manufacturer" reports critical of global warming: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html Coal powered electric cooperative paid $100,000 environmental professor for being GW skeptic: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2242565 If money is tainting research surrounding the issue of global warming it is tainting the research conducted by the skeptics who are being actively funded by those with ties to the fossil fuel industry and thus the most to lose if society turns its back on fossil fuels. This is no different than the methods the tobacco industry employed to cast doubt on the health risks of smoking.

This is not true. The evidence has been brought forth in many different ways by many different people over time, but after a while the lay person starts to glaze over when faced with dueling charts. It simply gets to a point where it needs to be pointed out the sheer weight and mass of consensus on an issue. This is the weakest argument I have heard to date on any debate outside of debates on intelligent design. What you have just said is that we can not trust any science and that we might as well give up on scientific investigation. In science oftentimes something can not be proved beyond any shadow of a doubt to satisfy the greatest skeptic until the predicted event happens. As such as a society we must make determinations based on the preponderance of evidence and scientific wisdom. In this case the preponderance of evidence and scientific research has become so overwhelming that the vast majority of all scientists studying this issue world wide have come to very similar conclusions. Their conclusions be boiled down to global warming is a real threat, human burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming AND we only have a limited time to act before current trends become irreversible. Our knowledge of global warming and man's contribution to it isn't based on some individual paper in some obscure electrical engineering journal. It is based on a century of research by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists in countless different disciplines doing individual research that has over time begun to "paint" a very convincing picture that points to a specific global problem and a specific global cause. The amount of consensus within the scientific community on global warming may very well rival the amount of consensus on the validity of the theory of evolution. There is a time for debate and skepticism on an issue and there is a time to put an end to debate and take action. With global warming if the preponderance of science is correct as the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions have concluded, then the time we have to take action is quickly running out. Prudence dictates that we stop debating and take action. Oh I'm so sure that the scientists that have been working on this issue for the past seventy years all had it out for big oil and wanted to find personal gain from the next energy source. Yes folks this is one big conspiracy and the vast majority of scientists and scientific institutions have been duped or are in on the conspiracy. It all makes perfect sense to me now.

You mean like the Union of Concerned Scientists, the National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, et al.? Since the GW deniers are going out of their way to dismiss or belittle the IPCC, I thought I'd provide a link to a Union of Concerned Scientists article that explains what the IPCC is and how it works: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html Here is a summary of the latest IPCC report by the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/ipcc-highlights1.html It should be noted that the IPCC reports are some of the most heavily scrutinized and peer reviewed scientific reports to be published. There are very few reports that get more scrutiny before being published (see UCS link describing how the IPCC works above). The evidence has been accumulating since the 19th century (A history lesson on global warming: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013101808.html) and the level of agreement on this issue is greater than most scientific theories. The only way global warming could be more conclusively proven to be true is to do nothing and watch things unfold. The time for debate on this issue is over. GW deniers need to be ignored and we must move forward with finding solutions. The solutions must provide developing countries a means to develop without continuing to exasperate the problem and developed countries must find ways to reduce their impact. I don't see the need to act as drain on society as much as an opportunity. It is an opportunity to move society forward by forcing the development of technologies that will allow us to harness energy from new and innovative sources and to use that energy more efficiently. It will force society to become more creative in the utilization of natural resources. In the long run this will be good for the environment and good for society (irregardless of the GW issue).

I think this is an unfair statement, because I personally know very few people who accept global warming as a real human caused issue taking this stance. Yest there are fringe groups that want us to "turn back the clock" but this is not the mainstream belief. I look at it as a matter that we need to become more efficient and consume less resources so that we have something to leave our descendants. We do not need to step backwards to resolve these issues, rather we need to move forward. If I could cut my energy costs by half by having a more efficient home and more efficient vehicle, I'd have a lot more to leave behind to my children because not as much of my money would have been spent on energy. If we as a society quickly move forward with finding real alternatives to fossil fuels we will not leave the burden of needing to make the switch to our descendants and will leave them with a cleaner environment. If we learn how to reduce our waste of resources, we can leave our descendants with more unspoiled forests and more untapped resources in the earth.

So in other words you aren't willing to make adjustments in your life for the sake of your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. and are looking for the thinest threads of "evidence" to support your desire not to change. In my opinion, self interest and the innate desire to have/consume more is one of the greatest factors in causing people to go to great lengths to "disprove" the overwhelming evidence supporting global warming and man's contribution to it. To admit that global warming is a real problem and that man is a significant factor in GW would be to admit that one needs to make changes in one's life. For many, it is far more desirable to deny GW and cling to whatever skeptical evidence, regardless of how thin that skeptical evidence is, while discounting the overwhelming evidence supporting GW than it is to admit one is part of the problem. This mentality my friends is the surest way to go down the path of bad science. This is true with intelligent design and it is true with climate change.

Oh man, Q was about my favorite "villain". I always knew that Q would toy with the crew like a cat toys with a mouse and there wasn't squat the crew could do about it. Many of my favorite lines came from episodes that featured Q. Like when the senior staff was transported to Sherwood Forest and Captain was Robinhood. Worf made one of my all time favorite statements: "I must protest. I am not a merry man!" Seeing Worf in geen tights and a green hat while saying that was priceless.

Icemelt's post #65 against CO2 and global warming reminds me of an "Intelligent Design" defense where the names of lots of scientists are brought forth to support ID. If there are 100,000 scientists (made up, but realistic number) studying GW and related issues and 95% agree (another made up number) that GW is caused by man there would still be 5,000 scientists that one could reference when trying to argue against GW and man being the primary cause available to be referenced and quoted. People think that there is more debate on the issue of global warming than there really is, this is a similar problem that exists with evolution and "intelligent design." Much of the cause of this false belief of debate on this issue is caused by the media's belief that fair and balance means that one must always give equal air time to opposing views on an issue without regard to how much debate there is on an issue or how credible the two sides are. A really interesting paper that looks at this exact issue is: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978 Here's an interesting article about a lobbying group offering scientists $10,000 for producing reports that cast doubt on global warming: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html Exxon Mobil funnel $16 million to groups and individuals to "manufacturer" reports critical of global warming (Union of Concerned Scientists): http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html Coal powered electric cooperative paid $100,000 environmental professor for being GW skeptic: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2242565 The very long history of studying greenhouse gases and global warming: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013101808.html Highlights from above article: 1) Irish scientist John Tyndall establishes CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the 19th century. 2) British engineer Guy Callendar had compiled empirical evidence of CO2 released by fossil fuels was having a measurable affect on the earth's climates by the 1930's 3) Charles David Keeling implements a systematic monitoring program at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. By the 1960's he demonstrated conclusively that atmospheric carbon dioxide was steadily rising (President Bush awarded Keeling the National Medal of Science in 2002 for this work). 4) In a 1965 message to Congress President Lyndon Johnson stated: "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." 5) In 1966 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather and Climate Modification, headed by geophysicist Gordon MacDonald concluded that increased carbon dioxide might also lead to "inadvertent weather modification." Gordon MacDonald, later served on President Richard Nixon's Council on Environmental Quality. The above article is a good history lesson since so many think that global warming is a new issue. ==Notes== With all the mountains of discussion, articles, blogs and babble about global warming and climate change, I'm finding an extremely high noise ratio when trying to dig up reports that look at the history of this issue. Getting past the talking heads is really hard. == More sideline humor == Cartoon: Al Gore and Bender from Futurama pimping Al Gore's movie (really quite funny especially if you are a Futurama fan): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24