Please come up with a real solution. Like a new black plague, or removing our government officials and replacing them with Greenpeace. Thanks.

~The Annoyed Inheritors.

Why are we always looking for a quick fix so that we don't have to change our ways. Just follow Kyoto, bring out the real technologies that don't pollute and CHANGE YOUR WAYS!
I did it.. hey I'm still alive! And by the way it will keep people alive longer too! They say that after you die, your money stays and people continue to live! So stop thinking about yourself and do it for everyone else!

Hey DUM ASS, The earth is priceless.

Um, isn't there plenty enough oxygen in the deep ocean to cause the algae to decompose and form carbon dioxide that will float to the surface? You have to strip the oxygen off the carbon, such as what plants do, and then keep it away from oxygen, otherwise it goes right back into the air.

Less Global warming if the politicians were less full of hot air. It's a good start. I live in the US, and I want a government for the people, not for the lobbyists. The nice thing about the earth is that it will, given time, correct itself. We just have to stop trying to kill it. One day at a time, there isn't going to be a quick fix as long as we continue to make things worse. I'm not saying we need to revert to candles and personal farms everywhere, but any step in the right direction is a good start. 100 billion is a lotta money, makes ya wonder how many long term inexpensive things you could do. That's a lotta college for the underpriveledged who might get it right in the next ten years.

JohnDoe, You can help by removing your worthless hide from this earth. It ain't much, but it's a start. Wishing the black plague on humanity makes you a complete scumbag. You're probably one of those vegetarian freaks who think animals have more of a right to this earth than humans. Why don't you live by your principles then?

And as for the second moron, how many of the Kyoto signers have met their guidelines? Get rid of SUVs? Why don't you take it a step further and remove all modern conveniences, including power saws and hand tools (quick science lesson cause I assume you're an idiot - electricity is largely created by coal which is burned and creates warming).

As many articles as I've published over the years (7 to date) about the unequivocal, unrivaled hysteria that is "global warming," nobody really sees it for what it truly is. Quit looking at the sky and look at your pockets, because that's where all the GREEN-house gases (or green paper dollars) go. It's inversely proportional, actually. The more people care, the less money you will end up having at your disposal. Politics aside (that's all it really is, mind you), just remember that a single volcanic blast releases more greenhouse gases and pollution that ALL OF LIFE ON EARTH, combined, over millions of years, has. Anyone who preaches "greenpeace" or "green house," just needs to look at the facts instead of looking at what you're fed by the media.

And OF COURSE the $100 billion-dollar ocean fertilization proposal won't work; you can't fix what isn't actually broken, now can you? Of course you can always improve it, modify it, or ACTUALLY break it in the process. Where would this money supposedly come from?

Think about it people. Nothing in the universe is free. You can never create or destroy energy, only change it's state. There are NO adibiatic (lossless) reactions. If you want to gain something, you have to give something of greater value. All the "ECOnomists" would do well to remember that basic rule. How much sacrifice is required to temporarily fix a problem?

Seems like a scheme to boost some fertilizer companies revenues...

We should leave the oceans alone. The effects of algae blooms can be seen where the Mississippi river empties into the Gulf of Mexico during the summer months. It creates a "dead zone" which kills all life in the affected area (i.e. huge amounts of dead fish washing onto the shore). For some reason the proposed plan sounds like a bad idea after learning about this topic in school.

We need to replant the planetary A/C unit we call the Rain Forest and stop to deforestation. By deforestation and bottom trawling the oceans we are destroying the things that regulate and produce our atmosphere.

Doesn't plant decomposition produce methane and doesn't that just so happen to be a far more potent green house gas than carbon dioxide?

So people actually wasted money coming up with these stupid ideas? How about we stop using coal for power plants and start building more nuclear energy plants! The technology has been out for years. Why aren't we using it more?!

RE to AlFrick1234 - your comment proves the hypocrisy that is Greenpeace. If you support removing modern conveniences - then why don't you start? Or is losing your precious computer and internet too much? Just admit that you are addicted to your modern conveniences just as much as the rest of us. If Greenpeace could be a lot more real and less hypocritical - then maybe most of us would at least consider their ideas.

Global warming is a sham concocted by people for the purpose of controlling the lives of others. Global warming is great for businesses (check out how GE has positioned itself if 'green' tech catches on). Global warming is great for government (more laws, more taxes, more bureaucracy). Global warming is a straw dog, a red herring, a fig leaf meant to cover up the naked truth...that people want to control your actions so they can force you to buy their products or obey their edicts.

The politics and economics of climate change
Lord Nigel Lawson
2007 HV McKay Lecture

"... But in fact, while some of the science is settled, there is much that is not. So let’s start with the facts."

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/mckaylecturelawsononclimatecatastrophism.pdf

www.icecap.us

There are many ways we can improve things. Retiring inefficient vehicles is just one of them. Wishing plagues on people isn't nice, but there are a growing number of scientists who believe there are too many people and we support ourselves in too destructive a fashion.

There are numerous examples of how people in North America can maintain their lifestyle while doing less harm to the world we depend upon for survival. Look at Western Europe. In many countries like Germany per capita energy usage and environmental footprint are a fraction of what they are in Canada or the US.

Before you suggest that we must live without all modern conveniences you should do a little research into what is happening in the world, how prosperous the people doing it are and how positive an effect it can have. You would probably be surprised by the cost effective options that are actually in use.

The cheapest way to deal with energy is to use it wisely to begin with. As a bonus it will also slow global warming while we try to undo some of what we have done.

.. where all gona die from over population anyways

How about all the damn hippies stop breathing. You're burning up valuable oxygen and replacing it with CO2.

Yes lets replace the government with Greenpeace. Then we can all live in trees and ride horses to work. Oh wait, we won't have jobs since industry takes power and that's evil too. So we'll all just sit in the forest doing nothing but smoke pot.

JohnDoe. Kill yourself. Give my new plan a push off.

if you believe global warming exists anyway, check again, this is one of the coldest times in the worlds history, and about on of the lowest carbon levels ever, we are coming out of an ice age people...read the book by Bill Bryson, "a short history of nearly everything" and you will realize how much of a crock global warming is. oh and by the way, if it was that much of a big deal, people like Al gore would actually do something about it, instead of own a house in Tennessee that uses 20 times the amount of the average home...how's that for conservation of energy?

read the book by Bill Bryson, "A short History of Nearly Everything" and you will realize that its one of the earth's coldest times, and carbon levels are relatively low, we are still coming out of an ice age...its a natural cycle the earth goes through. Don't get me wrong, i think pollution is harmful, but it does not cause "global climate change." And here is an even BIGGER hint that it is insignificant. Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for Global Warming awareness, and preaches to cut down on energy consumption, however his house (one of the many) in Tennessee consumes approximately 22 times the amount of energy of the average home. If he actually believed in it then wouldn't he actually do something about it beside by offsets...that doesn't really cut down on anything, the pollution and energy being used is still the same, but if he didn't use that much energy, and didn't buy the offsets, that energy wouldn't be used..or buy the offsets, and then still not use the energy (God knows he has the MONEY to do it himself).

Ok, so let me get this straight, I get rid of anything I have that is not efficient..just toss it into the landfills. Then I spend my hard earned money to buy MORE new stuff that is more efficient. Gee that sounds like a great idea.

Or lets say we recycle all my old stuff. Did you know that it takes a significant amount of energy to recycle. Melting glass, melting plastic, breaking down paper....all uses a lot of energy. Not to mention that recycling electronics releases a lot of toxins into the air.

So really...getting rid of old stuff is not helpful is it?

So whats the short verison of this Global warming thing?:

Throw away all your current stuff...and buy new $tuff.

So much for a civilized debate.....the american way appears to be: either you are on my site or the terrorist's side. Chuckle.
So many americans have strong opinions on matters they don't know jack doodoo about. Typical.
Well good luck...you will need it.

Fertalizer = Poop or nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or potassium. Lets just dump a massive amount of chemicals(or sewage)into the ocean, that will solve all our problems! /sarcasm

"if you believe global warming exists anyway, check again, this is one of the coldest times in the worlds history, and about on of the lowest carbon levels ever, we are coming out of an ice age people..."

and where did you get those facts? Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming. Besides, the coming out of an ice age takes thousands of years, not 20 or 30.

according to wikipedia, it says "human activities currently release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. "

[I'm not sure I'd trust Wikipedia for anything, especially on the subject of global warming. There are politics at play in the editing of Wikipedia. I've personally seen this in later edited entries on the U.S. Dollar to changes I'd posted previously. There are those who edit Wikipedia who don't care about the truth, but only their truth. -Rick]

I cant understand how someone can be as stupid as you...

You believe a BOOK, I believe in the world leaders and scientists who are trying to combat this problem for real to save our planet.

Global warming has been a FACT for a very long time now, you almost only have to turn on your TV and watch some meeting between world leaders on how to solve it..

Please kill yourself brian so you dont waste our air..

To stop all the debates about climate change please see the balanced and educated article at http://environment.newscientis...th/dn11462 which covers the most common questions people have.

THEN we're really gonna destroy the environment.

[Interesting point. You're saying we're being a little too reactionary? :) -Rick]

Bob wrote:
"So much for a civilized debate.....the american way appears to be: either you are on my site or the terrorist's side. Chuckle."

Just for the record, if it wasn't for the USA, Europe would be a single country, NAZI Germany. Not to mention the state the rest of the world would be in. So, if you're going to bash America, think of all the freedoms AMERICA gave you.

Now, that said, America does have problems, but it's a young country. Our problems are way less than any other country had at our age.

Global warming isn't just because of America. Look at South America, Africa, India and China. They are ruining the world wide ecology more so than America is with our fuel issues.

Something else I laugh about is this "per capita" figure people spout without looking at HOW it was figured. America has more production facilities and manufacturing plants than ANY European country. European countries get most of their man-made products from somewhere else. So, take all those "credits" and spread them across the world, then see how the numbers stack up. What I'm saying is, Yes we have higher figures as a specific country, but that's because our products aren't only used by us.

Another thing: If China and other countries were to release accurate figures, I don't think people would be bashing the US so much. We're under such a microscope that we can't hide our output, but that's not true about most other countries. I'd like to see what would happen to the investigators who try to sneak into China/African country and sneak out negative but accurate pollution info. They police themselves, the world polices America (at least relative to pollution).

[Don't worry, one world government ... we're heading there anyway. It just won't be carrying the Nazi flag when it comes, but the point will be the same. -Rick]

It is shear arrogance to think that we could do anything to permanently screw up the Earth. Our limited forethought makes us think about a few generations in the future. The Earth will be here long after we are gone. Then the bees can have their chance.

The whole thing is going to end in a fiery poof in a few billion years anyway when the sun goes red giant, so what if you drive an SUV.

BTW cars pollute much less now than, say, 20-30 years ago. Even back then they only accounted for about 10% of pollution. And I'd really like to know where they intend to dump the toxic sludge from all those hybrid car batteries when they die. They don't last forever, you know.

Green doesn't mean money for nothing.

There are clathrates all over the place. Sooner or later those things were gonna let lose anyway, and make the GW emissions of man look like a baby's blowbubble pipe.

Get a clue, our actions have limited significance to the planet -- as Katrina alone showed, our control over the planet is still far below its yearly throwaways of chaotic influences.

dear scientists: thank you for at elast trying to conceive solutions as we sit on our assess and just criticize you endlessly. meanwhile, we can bitch about our oil prices and why juan isn't cutting the lawn for a bucn an hour. wtf stop being so ignorant guys seriously get off your ass and come up with an idea if you're gonna sit around and be like "omg wtf stupEd"

I can see how you'd think a lot of americans are stupid, but you should also realize a lot of people in just about every country are stupid. intelligence is not in abundance, IN GENERAL.

[Don't confuse intelligence with education. Intelligence is greatly in abundance. Education is lacking, and more specifically, proper education. Unless a person is very self-driven to learn the truth about things, the mass-consumption educational systems which exist in most countries are designed to keep the sheep sheep. -Rick]

Please understand that an abundance of americans ARE stupid, but so are an abundance of EVERY OTHER SECT. I'm not excusing, just asking you to be honest with yourself...

"Just for the record, if it wasn't for the USA, Europe would be a single country, NAZI Germany. Not to mention the state the rest of the world would be in. So, if you're going to bash America, think of all the freedoms AMERICA gave you..."

Most of the German army was already destroyed by the Soviets by the time Americans reached Europe. The Soviets won key battles that led to German defeat in WWII, not Americans. I'm not trying to downplay American or European contributions, but these are facts. Look up how many Nazis were killed by the Russians as opposed by the Americans in that war. You will be surprised.

Of course, the States could not permit Communist Russia taking over the Western Europe. Getting into Western Europe to knock off the leftover Nazi forces was as much in the interest of the U.S. as it was in the interest of the Europeans.

I disagree. Education is vital, of course, but I don't see that being a sole factor. It's really a whole seperate topic, because to define intelligence would really depend on what it applies to. I tend to associate intelligence with being intelligent enough to educate yourself. That's all I've done?

[People have an innate ability to learn. This is separate independent of drive or desire. If you're looking at the overall picture, then you're looking at something like prudence or application. -Rick]

... correct. American did not hand the German's their asses, it was an assist.

Rick, I'm going to be polite but... your bias against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is starting to become PAINFUL at times in the way you present these news sniplets. People (including me) should know what their field of expertise is, and act appropriately humble.

Basically, there are three possibilities for AGW deniers:

(1) either they claim that "they looked at the evidence by themselves, and it is all bunk"

or(2) they come up with some scientist or small group of scientists, or conclusions by some Think-Tank, who claim that their alternative model is better and shows that AGW is not true or nothing to be concerned about.

Or(3) "it's all a big conspiracy".


(1)The first claim is absolutely laughable. It is, IMO, incredibly arrogant and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the complexity of present-day scientific knowledge. We are long past the days of amateur individuals having the means and data to develop an adequately informed opinion. Any armchair climatologist most likely has no fucking clue of the advanced science that is behind all the research that establishes the reality of AGW, JUST like you, me and any other person who isn't an expert in the field. Like, jsut about every day some crackpot who hasn't even heard of an acronym like LHC, comes up with some Theory of Everything. This is bad enough already for anti-intellectualists or people who are generally ignorant of science, but somehow maybe even worse for those who otherwise champion science and show confidence and interest in technology and science. What other reason than some personal preoccupation could they have, to decide to distrust this particular field of science? There is only one option, and that is to let the science go through its processes in a way as un-biassed as possible. An international group of academics (not tied to a single country or to the industry or whatever) seems to me like one of the LEAST BAD ways to get there. If you have confidence in science (as a whole, in the longer term), then this is your best bet, period.

(2) we can be short about argument two: it's a simple Argument from Authority. Which doesn't have to be a problem in all cases(as I just used it in argument(1) myself). So I agree it's fine in a case like this, but the problem for the AGW deniers is that they LOSE this one against an Argument from Bigger Authority.

(3) The only other defense left, is silly conspiracy theories not unlike 9/11 and Illuminati conspiracy stuff. Or nutballs seeing the UN as a Big Plan for World Dominance. Apart from the fact that this is really great company for a pro-AGW-conspiracy theory (sarcasm alert), I'd like to point out that it's self-evident that any conspiracy is easier (MUCH MUCH easier), the smaller you can keep it. So WHICH side is most likely to be the product of conspiracy, again?

All this is at times very reminiscent of the terrible Evolution vs Creation debate, ANOTHER one that was poluted by that GW Bush baboon... (sorry, I had to use an ad hominem at SOME point ;-) )

[I respect your opinion. I disagree with large parts of it. For what it's worth, I'm getting tired of reporting on global warming trends. However, they seem to be news. If you'd like to start reading other stories, then please do so. :) -Rick]

That was fast! ;-)

You disagree with large parts, so I take it that must mean you're one of those "nutballs seeing the UN as a Big Plan for World Dominance", lol.

[It's obviously a competing ideology to the position of sovereign nations, which I support. I do not agree with a single, global authority in any regard. In such societies, everyone becomes one type of citizen, all believing one thing, being fed one thing (physically, on TV, etc.). It is diversity which makes mankind thrive. Diverse ideas and opinions, and then their impact on society moving forward. I believe in the founding father's intent for this nation: trade and open communication with all, alliances with none. However, in all honesty, as a Christian, I do believe in a one nation state, that ruled by Jesus Christ. I long for that change in leadership, I assure you. :) As for right now, there is a mountain of evidence that global warming is a political tool, nothing more. When I was in 4th grade we learned about mini ice-ages and warm trends over the past several hundred years. It's ill-informed to believe that mankind can do anything which would affect this Earth to such a degree that it would not bounce back. What I do see as ridiculous though, that entire philosophical argument aside, is that mankind should be contributing in any way toward the damage of this, our home. We should be green, but not because of global warming, because it's the right thing to do. -Rick]

I think your last suggestion was best: global warming news is probably not very on-topic in a (computer)technology news section anyway... That was actually one of my gripes, that this is simply not the most useful place to discuss this stuff.

[Couldn't agree more. -Rick]

BTW, I grately value your opinions when it comes to computer-technology, so no problems with those, buddy. :)

[Much appreciated. -Rick]

Just for the record, the Russians were - initially - on the Germans side untill they attacked the Russians. The Americans in WWII was a determining factor. USA was fighting two wars and won in both of them. USA was helping Russia fight against Germany in WWII.

[Rick:I do not agree with a single, global authority in any regard. In such societies, everyone becomes one type of citizen, all believing one thing, being fed one thing (physically, on TV, etc.). It is diversity which makes mankind thrive. Diverse ideas and opinions, and then their impact on society moving forward]

I wouldn't say the UN strives to turn all people on earth into a mono-culture (quite on the contrary, looking at some of the projects they support). Why something like the UN is needed, and what a body like the UN needs to work towards, IMO, is providing a forum in which different populations can come together to coordinate activities that would otherwise potentially cause harm to the greater cause (humanity).

[European Union. North American Union. Eventually something like a South American Union and Asian Union, etc. There are global migrations toward such a society. One currency. One government. These things are in motion right now. Look at the money trail. The Federal Reserve Bank is not a bank. It's not federal. It has no reserves. And yet, this entire nation is tied to it explicitly. NORFED was recently raided on undisclosed charges, a commodity-based alternative offering barter currency based on gold or silver rounds (coins). Follow the Federal Reserve on up to the Internationl Monetary Fund. These are private organizations. There is no governmental oversight that is represented by the people. These are self-serving entities desiring to bring all people inline. -Rick]

Like it or not, but we are fast approaching a situation in which humanity as a whole could cause great harm if we all (people and nations) just stare at our own navels.

[There is no staring to be had. We look to one another, we talk to one another, we trade with one another. We keep our individuality in tact. We are citizens of country X, Y and Z. We have distinct differences which make us unique. Resources, ideologies, etc. We are not all part of a collective system. I believe we should get out of the UN and any organizations which are not represented by the people. Our Republic, not our Democracy (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...), is based on property rights. We own things, therefore we have rights to use them in whatever way we see fit. This is the basis of the rule of law in this nation. Common, Equity, Admiralty. Everything else we see today is a bastardization, a corporate twist, a political bent, an ideological shifting over time, of that fundamental tenant, that each of us has God-given rights to own property. -Rick]

There needs to be awareness of which influence local actions/activities have in the big picture. And sometimes some sort of incentive to correct this. A hundred years ago, nations and populations could pretty much do as they liked without bothering anyone. That is no longer the case. If we all blindly fly our own course, we're in big trouble.

[There's nothing anywhere, in any event, in any way, stopping a sovereign nation from doing exactly those things, and even its citzenry from doing them independently. It is a facade that it requires a governmental body to orchestrate such things. It is in everybody's best interests to keep talking. -Rick]

I just want to say that I agree with you 100%. Also, to knowitall, you stated in #2 that the authority against global warming are smaller than those for global warming. I would have to disagree. There are many, many top level climatologists who say global warming is nothing but a political tool. Many of them have left the NWA and NOAA because they do not agree with the standpoint of Global Warming. If by authority you are talking about Al Gore, well.... I won't get into that.

Oh boy, this global cooling thing is going to turn our world into one big ball of ice and we'll all freeze to death.

Oh wait, it isn't the 60s and 70s anymore. It's global WARMING in the 21st Century. Help! We're all gonna burn!


Knowitall hit the nail right on the head. There is no conspiracy, it's all out in the open.

Global Warming is a banner to which One-Worlders (those who want nations to cease and everyone to agree with them) to consolidate their power and give it to the UN. You know, the guys that turned a blind eye (if not even helped out) while Iraq used Oil-for-Food to build palaces and create new and exciting torture programs. Of course, they did it for a nice profit, not just out of altruism.

Meanwhile the esteemed Mr. Gore pollutes like there is no tomorrow driving around in his FLEET of gas guzzling SUVs and private jets to accept his Nobel Prize, while us little folks are supposed to heed his dire prophecies and do exactly what HE says or we're all gonna die!

Let me know when we're back on the Global Cooling kick. I'll need a new jacket.

We should be green, but not because of global warming, because it's the right thing to do. -Rick

I couldn't agree more.

Everyone Should take responsibility for themselves and their little portion of the world. We should educate ourselves as best we can and try to live sustainably. That our neighbour (or even an entire nation) chooses not to live this way is not justification for shirking our own responsibilities to ourselves, and succeeding generations.

Save the bloody Amazon rainforest.

...hopefully the LAST GW-related news item on this COMPUTERTECH news service...

Thank you for listening,

The Equalizer

We should be green, but not because of global warming, because it's the right thing to do. -Rick

Rick, why is it the right thing to do?

[You don't poop in your mess kit. -Rick]

Because you say so? Because Al Gore says so? It's kind of hard to argue against "It's the right thing to do" because that's not an argument. It's a statement of opinion that basically says, "Screw you if you don't agree with me, cause your wrong!" Not very logical (or mature).

And what is "green?" Is it what Green Peace says? Is it what Earth First says? Al Gore? You? Do you get to say what everyone can and cannot do? Is green switching from gasoline to toxic batteries manufactured in plants spewing all sorts of interesting stuff into the environment? Is it running on hydrogen and spewing NOx rather than COx into the atmosphere? Is it using recycled paper rather than paper form tree farms? Who gets to decide?

I could easily say that everyone should shut down their computers forever because it's the right thing to do!

Please don't tell me what the right thing for me to do is. That's my job!

I believe that most of us don't seem to care much about global warming because we know that we will probably be long gone before a serious issue occurs. I’m talking about all humanity being in jeopardy. That is of course, if it comes to that.. But that is sad, because our kids will have to deal with the consequences of OUR actions or inactions as it were...

Yes,....REFOREST!

Nice conspiracy talk coupled with poisoning the well and some "tu quoque". All combined with the MYTH that there ever was a global cooling consensus (instead of a short media hype that stood on itself).

Wake me up once you have something actually convincing to tell. Somehow I don't expect the intellectual honesty. Not from someone who doesn't even care to hide that the ability to do what he wants to do seems the entire basis of his life philosophy. Oh well.. At least you have that ridiculous fatalism ("the sun will turn red giant in 2 billion years anyway, so what do *I* care") as an excuse to not care.

OK, how about the Ozone hole? Weren't we supposed to have to wear major sunblock to go outside by the year 2000? And then you'd still get cancer anyway eventually.

[Only in Australia. -Rick]

How about acid rain? You just don't hear about good ole acid rain anymore. I guess it just magically disappeared.

[The Ozone hole periodically shrinks, then grows again, then shrinks. It does not seem to be impacted by man. Right now, it's quite thick. -Rick]

You need something to drive the stewardship point home to grade school kids. But as adults should think on our own, even if some people don't want us to.

I'm just saying that I have the intelligence and education to make up my own mind. I also have the dignity to not just blindly follow some politico or special interest group looking for publicity, power and/or money. I also have the wisdom to avoid running around yelling that the sky is falling and then blindly doing whatever you (or anyone else) tell me to do.

I don't get my scientific information from CNN (or FoxNews for that matter) and definitely not from Al Gore.

I really hate the "I was just following orders" and "it's the right thing to do" type of mentality that will lead everyone over the cliff like a herd of lemmings. You have to understand why you should do something, not quote mantras.

For your information, there is as much evidence of Global Cooling in the 60s & 70s as there is of Global Warming now. Just look at the average temp charts!!!

And if you want $10B going to this or any other lame-brained scheme to prevent further warming then please, by all means, donate heavily. But I don't think my tax dollars should support it.

Paul,

it's obvious we're not going to get out of this.

Let me ask you a question: can you think of ANY argument that would make you change ANY behavior (or even opinion) that you have? I'm talking about a change in behavior that you would experience as an inconvenience, or simply having to *admit* that you happened to have an opinion that turns out to be wrong (let's assume, just for the sake of it, that this COULD happen to you under some extreme circumstances, haha).

Like, what WOULD convince you of the reality of anthropogenic global warming? What does/would convince you of the fact that smoking causes cancer? What does/would convince you that mercury in vaccines causes autism? What does/would convince you of the reality of evolution? What does/would convince you that something like the Big Bang happened?

I would be interested to hear your answers for these particular cases.

This of course assumes that you DO change opinion sometimes, or DO form an opinion from time to time on something you didn't have an opinion on before. Which applies to most people, since we aren't BORN with opinions, and since most people do not have the divine talent to be right, rightaway.

Add one more example: an asteroid impact that would release the energy of say, 10.000 nuclear explosions.

"How about acid rain? You just don't hear about good ole acid rain anymore. I guess it just magically disappeared."

Actually, it may just have... and because of US policies too! Acid rain is caused mostly by sulphur and nitrogen oxides (SOx and NOx). IIRC it was in the US that they came up with the idea of trading emission rights for these pollutants and eventually brought them down to a fraction of what they were.

Incidentally, SOx and NOx are said to cause a "global cooling" effect because they are particles which reflect sunlight in the atmosphere and prevent it from reaching the ground and heating it. This may have disguised global warming, which might explain why many scientists are saying the temperatures are rising much faster than they had predicted.

Good call!

The "ozone gap"Good call!

The "Ozone hole" is another great so called "counterexample" that cracks me up. So yeah, the "doom"scenario didn't pan out. OF COURSE that can't have anything to do with the counter-measurements that were implemented after the culprit chemicals and mechanism were identified, now can it... DUH!

Quite comparable to the nowadays popular notion that the year2000 problem was nothing but a total hype. If we forget about the ridiculous scenarios involving nukes being launched by accident or powergrids going down, I can tell you that at least for our company it WOULD have been a major disaster if we wouldn't have spent a couple of years cleaning out all the cobol bugs. The world wouldn't have ended, but it would have cost months to clean up all the mess afterwards. I bet our clients wouldn't have appreciated that!!!

I don't smoke. But smoking doesn't cause cancer. That's the media spin. Anyone with any scientific training knows that environmental factors increase the chance of disease, not cause the disease (in most cases). That's why my Great Grandma smoked like a chimney until she died at 95 years old without a speck of lung cancer.

But I don't smoke. I don't want to increase my chance of getting lung cancer by several thousand fold.

Mercury in vaccines has never been shown to have any cause/effect relationship with autism occurrence. You should really look into it. Anyone preaching against vaccines because of autism now-a-days is completely ignorant since they don't use Thimerosal anymore. They are also falsely endangering the lives of children which is deplorable. The removal of Thimerosal was partly just-in-case thinking-which should be done when immediate damage may result-partly because they had found better ways to preserve vaccines. In fact, autism rates have risen since they stopped using Thimerosal in vaccines. The rise is generally credited to more awareness which leads to more diagnoses.

I wasn't aware that you wanted to start a religious debate. But evidence of evolutionary models and the big bang are everywhere around us. On the other hand, Newton's physical model of the universe matched up with our observations for quite sometime, until our observations changed enough that Einstein and his contemporaries redefined the universe. And we constantly make further refinements. There are those who argue that the big bang may not have occurred. They are not fringe lunatics without education.

I'm not sure why you try to paint me as a selfish bastard or as a stupid person because I don't follow your beliefs (or you think I don't). This is the problem I have with you, Al Gore and others. Your "religious crusade" is being waged by denigrating those who don't agree with your beliefs. (And you wage it as well as any religion has waged a crusade, don't you?)

I have changed my beliefs many times since I started forming my belief system. Always studying the issues and looking at the evidence in a very logical and scientific manner. I know that even peer-reviewed articles can be wrong and articles in the popular press are always subjected to maximum scrutiny. I don't take anything at face value, but I don't dismiss evidence out of hand either. Through careful deliberation I determine how my "beliefs" are formed. And I have found that I do have to admit that I was wrong. Sometimes more than once on the same issue.

Can you admit that you are wrong?

(warning: pretty long because I got carried away...)

[I don't smoke. But smoking doesn't cause cancer. That's the media spin. Anyone with any scientific training knows that environmental factors increase the chance of disease, not cause the disease (in most cases). That's why my Great Grandma smoked like a chimney until she died at 95 years old without a speck of lung cancer.]

Are we trying as hard as possible to disagree, here, lol? It's not because we can't _trace back_ a particular case of cancer in a single person to a particular "single cause", that there _isn't_ one in reality. That's what we have the epidemiological studies for. SOMETHING must push things over the edge, and the studies clearly show that smoking will very often be the thing that does just that. That there are plenty of cancers that wouldn't have been there if the person hadn't smoked. If you consider the resulting claim that "smoking causes cancer" a "media spin", then I'm starting to get a feeling for your eagerness to accept a position AGAINST what is reported in mass media. But, I understand that going against the tide can give one a warm feeling...

[Mercury in vaccines has never been shown to have any cause/effect relationship with autism occurrence. You should really look into it.]

Did I say I endorsed a relationship? I only asked a question.

[Big Bang & Evolution]

Good.

[I'm not sure why you try to paint me as a selfish bastard or as a stupid person because I don't follow your beliefs (or you think I don't)]

We can only go by what we read... Some of what you wrote had a particular tone to it. I wouldn't use the word "stupid".

[This is the problem I have with you, Al Gore and others. Your "religious crusade" is being waged by denigrating those who don't agree with your beliefs. (And you wage it as well as any religion has waged a crusade, don't you?)]

Crusade? Sure... We all know I censored you, I put needles under your fingernails until you named two other "followers" of your "beliefs", and burned you at the stake. (rolleyes) And stop using your disagreement with a politician (Al Gore) as an excuse. I never said Al Gore is the guru. I'm not in his country and I never even saw his documentary (even exactly for some of the reasons that YOU state, lol)! Besides, the "other" side is no less ideologically inspired as far as I can see.

[I have changed my beliefs many times since I started forming my belief system. Always studying the issues and looking at the evidence in a very logical and scientific manner. I know that even peer-reviewed articles can be wrong and articles in the popular press are always subjected to maximum scrutiny. I don't take anything at face value, but I don't dismiss evidence out of hand either. Through careful deliberation I determine how my "beliefs" are formed. And I have found that I do have to admit that I was wrong. Sometimes more than once on the same issue.]

Can you admit that you are wrong?]

Paul, let me explain where, IMO, the real difference lies.

You agree with evolution, you agree with the Big Bang hypothesis, you agree (although you preferred to pretend to disagree with me as much as possible ;-) ) that smoking causes cancer. (follow up in next message)

Why do you agree with evolution? Did you excavate fossils and interprete them with all the knowledge you acquired in your university courses in geology and paleontology? Did you get your degree in molecular biology to interprete the DNA evidence? Did you do your own experiments on fruit flies and bring that together with your extensive knowledge in population genetics?

Why do you agree with the Big Bang hypothesis? Did you build your own spectroscope to analyse starlight and see the redshift? Did you verify that this is caused by expansion of space and not by some other effect? Did you build your own antenna to detect the cosmic background noise and did you think deeply about possible other sources for it? Did you verify the cosmological calculations that predicted the current levels of background radiation? Are you SURE there aren't any calculation errors in the models that predict the distribution of elements created in the Big Bang?

Why do you agree that smoking causes cancer? Did you set up your own epidemiological study to verify("see with your own eyes")? Did you find out on your own that you better didn't bother about that, since only very long term studies with thousands and thousands of participants and a multitude of controlling factors could tell us something meaningful? Why don't you believe (anymore?) the denial reports from the parties that are most "familiar" with cigarettes (the tobacco companies)?

The first possibility is that you ARE (or claim to be) a true "homo universalis" like Leonardo Da Vinci was in his era, and that you indeed acquired all the necessary knowledge and did the studies, and that these convinced you. Or, to a lesser degree, at least some "homo universalis 'light'", in the sense that you spend your days and nights reviewing scientific papers and studies in all of those scientific fields, in order to "make up your own mind based on the reported facts".

I safely assume this is not your claim, but if so, I wonder if you would ever have time to take a shit or sleep, let alone make money to stay alive... :-)

The only other reasonable possibility, like it or not, will always come down to basing your opinions to some level on AUTHORITY. Inevitably mixed with a dose of gut feeling (hopefully as little as possible). No matter how much you insist for yourself that you apply "careful deliberation" and "maximum scrutiny". It might make you feel good that you "study the issues" and "look at the evidence", but in the end it is not realistically possible to skip all the filters between yourself and the facts and most of the interpretations. It is and remains relying on AUTHORITY to a large degree.

Mind you: this is NOT my reproach. In fact, I fully agree that there is no alternative that is better than partly relying on the authority of peer-reviewed science. I prefer to think about it as a form of "justified confidence", but when one is intellectually honest, one has to admit for oneself that from each individual's point of view it largely comes down to argument from authority in almost EVERY case. With exception of those subjects where you happen to be an expert in the field.
(follow up in next message)

My REAL reproach is that you (a) don't seem to be consistent in your approach, (b) sound much more certain than justified, (c) you focus on some strawman, which is not a good sign

(a) the various claims that you DO accept(tabacco,cosmology,evolution...), came to you via the SAME processes via which AGW comes to you: a meaningful scientific consensus (not TOTAL consensus, but show me a TOTAL consensus for any of these subjects) reached by long-term open inquiry and peer-review. If the consensus around them contributed to your acceptance (and I think I successfully argued that there is little realistic alternative), then what is the REAL reason why you deny any consensus around AGW? ALL these subjects have in common that they are extremely complex and totally outside the possibilities of any individual to personally verify every claim. I see no meaningful distinction in that respect?

And (b), where do you get the confidence to so CATEGORICALLY deny it? We're not talking here about using qualifyers ("the jury's still out") or anything. No, you sound pretty definitive about it. Which translates to: all these scientific societies and peer-reviewed journals basically consist of idiots, or puppets of some unspecified conspiracy. Did you never notice how arrogant that sounds (rightfully so)?

(c) "permanently screwing up the earth" (see one of your messages above) is definitely not one of the claims of mainstream AGW. But of course it's much easier to argue against. That scores bad points for intellectual honesty.


Here's my impression of what it comes down to:

it all STARTS with this basic distrust you (and many others here) have for ANYTHING that is related to the UN in some way, ANYTHING that happens to be hyped via mass media, ANYTHING that could imply that something would be imposed on you or would be "recommended" by some authority. Combine this with a certain pride to "make up your own mind", and the fact that (just like the smoking/cancer relationship) it is absolutely impossible to identify a complex mechanism/evolution with your own eyes, which gives you just enough room for denial. All this adds up to a situation where you rationalize away all kinds of arguments which wouldn't bother you in the least, or would have no problem convincing you, in other issues.

I do NOT want to imply that it is blasphemy to doubt AGW, but AT THE VERY LEAST one should be more cautious in dismissing it.

Congrats if you got through this, lol...

Yes, Knowitall, I have done all of those things. I am a scientist by education, training and experience. So I have observed data on red-shift, the dangers of smoking and have looked at fossil records.

Have you actually taken measurements of temperatures and correlated that with man-made, natural and other confounding factors to determine unequivocally that global warming is a man-made phenomenon?

But what you are implying is that it is blasphemy to argue against AGW as you call it. If someone disagrees with you it is automagically because they are uneducated, stupid, or just plain wrong. You should really try objectively listening to the other side and study the facts rather than the politics. Even then, as any scientist will tell you, the facts can be interpreted in a myriad of ways.

The real reason I deny consensus, is because it simply isn't there. Is the Earth warming? Yes. Is this man-made? Doesn't look like it. Are the evil meanies being targeted by the environmental groups the culprit even if it is man-made? Doubtful.

Cow farts followed by horse farts (per animal) and sheep farts (for the world herd) put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than anything else (OK it's their belches, too). So you should go vegetarian.

But wait rice actually has a mechanism for transporting the methane created by anaerobic bacteria in the water covered soil of the patties through the plant to be expired by the leaves. So cut the rice products, too. How much are you willing to give up?

It's been fun. Please, by all means get in your last shot. I'm done.

BTW, I never claimed to know it all. But I do know some things.

...for the next "paradigm shift", then.

Start publishing your research.

This is 2 funny! With all the text that has been written here you could write a small book entitled: “What do you base your opinions’ on?” or “How dare you say 'stuff' about 'things' that you didn’t study your self”

ROFL-

There are many climate scientists that have said that there isn’t enough information to tell if what we are doing has much of an impact.

The thing is the earth is coming out of an ice age so yes the planet is warming up. There are many process that are just not understood enough for them to say if what we do is speeding the process up significantly or not.
Many of these climate scientists have been shushed because of politics. They are shushed by the goverments not funding them because it doesn’t fit the political agenda. And are censored by the rest of them so they can keep there funding.
NASA at one time came out and said they didn't have enough information to say that we were a determining factor in the warming trends of the world. They were then forced to apologize for this by the polititons.
Allot of the climate science is bad science there conclusions are based off incomplete special sets of data. They often ignore other sets of data because it doesn't agree with the results they want. So I for one don’t trust the conclusions that are out there right now.

While I do think curbing our pollution is a good thing (because it’s a responsible thing to do) the hype that is out there on global warming is something that the "greens" bring up to justify trying to get there views pushed onto the rest of us. A lot of these "extreme environmentalists" don't look at the big picture when they spout out there drivel

If many of the extreme environmentalist policies were put into place it would halt our economies, and actually cause more harm then good (IE the pollutions that is caused by the hybrid car production is much greater then just buying and using a current gas or diesel car). I am all for research into how to make our cars more efficient, or for research into alternate fuels for cars. Although I don’t think any are ready for main consumer use at this time. The closest being the biofuels which I think there can be great improvements on how to produce these without cutting our food production.

People here have brought up acid rain and the ozone hole.
Acid rain was a real problem from coal fired plants for the most part but was a local environmental problem that was fixed by running scrubbers. Yes this was something that needed to be looked at and was something we could defiantly point to our involvement in the cause.

The ozone hole well this one I have read mixed studies on. This is on that I think wasn’t as serious as people made out. Many of the changes that were made were to A/Cs and aerosols in spray can. A lot of the studies were to support the new refrigerant that was more costly to make. But I have seen studies that show how a single volcanic explosion puts out more ozone depleting gases then the whole of humanity has ever produced so again the ozone studies are on incomplete data and can’t truly be trusted

Does that mean we shouldn’t look to see if we are causing climate changes? No we should be looking but we shouldn’t go off half cocked and start proposing changes before we understand really what is going on. And what these proposed changes will do. Scientists also should not be claiming that they have irrefutable proof that we are responsible for global warming when they don’t have that proof.

No before you say get rid of my SUV (yes I do have one) and buy a more gas efficient car or go to a hybrid car (which making these cause more toxic environmental damage then my SUV) I will say I walk to work almost every day I drive my JEEP to go 4 wheeling for the most part an my 05 has about 6000 miles on it. This is my main vehicle. I use CFL bulbs to try and reduce my energy use I grow food in my own garden to eat so I consider myself pretty environmental friendly and aware and I still say that the gloabal warming kick that most people are all up in arms about is a bunch of BS.