United States Climate Action Partnership Calls on Bush to Address Global Warming.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Good for them!!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------
Companies press Bush, Congress on climate: reports (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070119/ts_nm/climate_coalition_dc_1)
Fri Jan 19, 2:11 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Major corporations are joining environmental groups to press President Bush and Congress to address climate change more rapidly, news reports said on Friday.

The coalition, including Alcoa Inc., General Electric Co., DuPont Co., and Duke Energy Corp. plans to publicize its recommendations on Monday, a day ahead of the president's annual State of the Union address, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The group also includes Caterpillar, PG&E, the FPL Group, PNM Resources, BP and Lehman Brothers, The New York Times reported.

The group, known as the United States Climate Action Partnership, will call for a firm nationwide limit on carbon dioxide emissions that would lead to reductions of 10 to 30 percent over the next 15 years, the NYT reported.
CONT.

[defenseman]

This global warming garbage is getting old..dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

This global warming garbage is getting old..dmanExplain why it's "garbage" when major corporations believe climate change is costing them millions a year in added expenses?

[defenseman]

Lots of conflicting information both for and against global warming. Hell, Gore won't have ANYONE on his "world" tour scientists wise, who disagrees with him, he cancels interviews IF the other individual in the interview contradicts his point of view, it's alot of hullabolu over data being used to make what point. Hell, the south pole ice mass is going to grow WAY BIGGER over the next 50 to 100 years well eclipsing the slight ice loss on the north pole. But does anyone know that? of course not.....tired of the rhetoric....tired of misinterpreted facts and RARELY hearing the opposing point of view in the media. Freakin media just plain sucks, damn orwellian bastards, they've got their "1984" big brother play book and their checking off the boxes as they go, if they had their way we all had better be learning farsi over the next 15 yrs or so......dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Lots of conflicting information both for and against global warming. Hell, Gore won't have ANYONE on his "world" tour scientists wise, who disagrees with him, he cancels interviews IF the other individual in the interview contradicts his point of view, it's alot of hullabolu over data being used to make what point. Hell, the south pole ice mass is going to grow WAY BIGGER over the next 50 to 100 years well eclipsing the slight ice loss on the north pole. But does anyone know that? of course not.....tired of the rhetoric....tired of misinterpreted facts and RARELY hearing the opposing point of view in the media. Freakin media just plain sucks, damn orwellian bastards, they've got their "1984" big brother play book and their checking off the boxes as they go, if they had their way we all had better be learning farsi over the next 15 yrs or so......dmanYou seemed to be woefully uninformed. Almost NO ONE questions global warming, except maybe Bush.

---------------------------------------------------
Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly (http://tinyurl.com/kewgu)
New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 3, 2006; Page A01

The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly.

The new findings, which are being published today in the journal Science, suggest that global sea level could rise substantially over the next several centuries.

[defenseman]

You seemed to be woefully uninformed. Almost NO ONE questions global warming, except maybe Bush.

---------------------------------------------------
Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly (http://tinyurl.com/kewgu)
New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 3, 2006; Page A01

The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly.

The new findings, which are being published today in the journal Science, suggest that global sea level could rise substantially over the next several centuries.

We could tit for tat all day long with article after article, both pro and con. I'm convinced there is WAY too much bias from the left to get it right in the media, and for the people to hear the truth.(Especially when Mr. global warming (Al Gore) won't even debate ANY expert or scientists who opposes HIS point of view, cancels talk show visits when an opposing point of view is scheduled the same time he is. Freaking coward and obviously trying to sell an eskimo a freezer. In any case, believe what you will, I will go out here shortly and buy my third SUV. Maybe a Hummer, haven't decided. Having a global warming kind of day don't you know, later..dman

[alkemical]

This global warming garbage is getting old..dman

I never heard of snow in malibu before dman.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

We could tit for tat all day long with article after article, both pro and con. I'm convinced there is WAY too much bias from the left to get it right in the media, and for the people to hear the truth.(Especially when Mr. global warming (Al Gore) won't even debate ANY expert or scientists who opposes HIS point of view, cancels talk show visits when an opposing point of view is scheduled the same time he is. Freaking coward and obviously trying to sell an eskimo a freezer. In any case, believe what you will, I will go out here shortly and buy my third SUV. Maybe a Hummer, haven't decided. Having a global warming kind of day don't you know, later..dman

What tit for tat? You said "Hell, the south pole ice mass is going to grow WAY BIGGER over the next 50 to 100 years well eclipsing the slight ice loss on the north pole" and I said no it isn't and backed it up. Like I said, almost NO ONE denies global warming is happening. You should really try and inform yourself on the science and facts to date.

[defenseman]

I never heard of snow in malibu before dman.

I'm thinking it happened about 3 decades ago...dman

[defenseman]

What tit for tat? You said "Hell, the south pole ice mass is going to grow WAY BIGGER over the next 50 to 100 years well eclipsing the slight ice loss on the north pole" and I said no it isn't and backed it up. Like I said, almost NO ONE denies global warming is happening. You should really try and inform yourself on the science and facts to date.

The facts can be spun either way, and delievered via various vehicles. Just because the "media" presentation is nearly 100% for the fact that it is happening, doesn't mean it is. Majority does not rule in this scenario. WHEN there is conflicting information available AND it is summarily discounted by the media and the "global warming" knomes, they lose credibility as well as the media outlet that refuses to introduce a counter point of view. In short, the media again telling us what we are going to eventually believe, sorry , not a chance. Not until the other argument is presented. I'll hop on board when they are above board IN ALL respects...dman

[defenseman]

I never heard of snow in malibu before dman.

S**t happens sometimes, it's malibu's turn...:welcome: ..dman

[alkemical]

I'm thinking it happened about 3 decades ago...dman

I'm not 3 decades old yet....

[Ninjafied]

almost NO ONE denies global warming is happening...

Almost no one denies that global warming is happening but absolutely no one can specify exactly how much mankind contributes to it.
Also, almost no one denies that if man wasn’t on earth right now it would still be getting warmer. So between factories pumping out tons of crap, solar flares and radiation, volcanic activity, the regular cyclical nature of earth, etc. etc. etc. who’s to blame? It’s harder to fix the problem when you can’t fix the blame first.
And then there’s places like China and India; try telling them to feed billions of people without using fertilizer or lay off a few hundred million workers to cut back on emissions.

But back in the US global warming creates jobs and get politicians elected…..
“Here are the basic facts you need to know:
Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it.
The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf

[BABronco]

Almost no one denies that global warming is happening but absolutely no one can specify exactly how much mankind contributes to it.
Also, almost no one denies that if man wasn’t on earth right now it would still be getting warmer. So between factories pumping out tons of crap, solar flares and radiation, volcanic activity, the regular cyclical nature of earth, etc. etc. etc. who’s to blame? It’s harder to fix the problem when you can’t fix the blame first.
And then there’s places like China and India; try telling them to feed billions of people without using fertilizer or lay off a few hundred million workers to cut back on emissions.

But back in the US global warming creates jobs and get politicians elected…..
“Here are the basic facts you need to know:
Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it.
The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf

Learned something new right there... or atleast heard a different spin on stuff

[defenseman]

I'm not 3 decades old yet....

congratulations...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Your link doesn't work for me Ninja.


Some basics on Globabl warming....


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




Climate Change (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903)

Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg17223154.500) see it in disappearing Arctic ice (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn6615) and permafrost (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn295). The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn6302) see it in disappearing glaciers (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn3634), forest fires (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn4022) and fatal heat waves (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn4259). Scientists see it in tree rings (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn6470), ancient coral (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg16422074.700) and bubbles trapped in ice cores (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn4121). These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn2225) on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980.

And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn5094) and volcanoes (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg17523523.500) should have cooled us down. Studies of the thermal inertia (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn7161) of the oceans suggest that there is more warming in the pipeline.
Climatologists reporting for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg17423392.400) (IPCC) say we are seeing global warming caused by human activities (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18024225.300) and there are growing fears (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524861.400) of feedbacks that will accelerate (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn7964) this warming.

more... (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903)

--------------------------------------------------
Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record) of the Earth's atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere) and oceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean) in recent decades and its projected continuation into the future.


Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%B1) 0.2 °Celsius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius) (1.1 ± (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%B1) 0.4 °Fahrenheit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit)) in the 20th century.
The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change)."<sup id="_ref-grida7_0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-grida7)</sup> Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol) aimed at combatting global warming. (See List of Kyoto Protocol signatories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories).)


The main cause of the human-induced component of warming is the increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) (CO₂). This leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect). Greenhouse gases are released by activities such as the burning of fossil fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel), land clearing, and agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture).


The measure of the response to increased GHGs, and other anthropogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic) and natural climate forcings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_forcings) is climate sensitivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity). It is found by observational and model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model) studies.<sup id="_ref-0" class="reference">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-0)</sup> This sensitivity is usually expressed in terms of the temperature response expected from a doubling of CO₂ in the atmosphere. The current literature estimates sensitivity in the range 1.5-4.5 °C (2.7-8.1 °F). Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) (IPCC) predict that global temperatures may increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The uncertainty in this range results from both the difficulty of predicting the volume of future greenhouse gas emissions and uncertainty about climate sensitivity.
An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a rising sea level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise) and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_%28meteorology%29). These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood), droughts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought), heat waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_wave), hurricanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane), and tornados (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado). Other consequences include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacier retreat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_retreat), reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction) and increases in the ranges of disease vectors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_%28biology%29). Warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events; however, it is difficult to connect particular events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming (and sea level rise due to thermal expansion) is expected to continue past then, since CO₂ has a long average atmospheric lifetime.
Remaining scientific uncertainties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty) include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and especially how changes will vary from region to region across the globe. A hotly contested political and public debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy) has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigation_of_global_warming), or to deal with the expected consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_to_global_warming).
Contents

[hide (javascript:toggleToc())]

1 Terminology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Terminology)
2 Historical warming of the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Historical_warming_of_the_Earth)
3 Causes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Causes)
3.1 Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Greenhouse_gases_in_the_atmosphere)
3.2 Other hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Other_hypotheses)
3.2.1 The solar variation theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#The_solar_variation_theory)
4 Expected effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Expected_effects)
5 Mitigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Mitigation)
6 Climate models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Climate_models)
7 Other related issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Other_related_issues)
7.1 Ocean acidification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Ocean_acidification)
7.2 Relationship to ozone depletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Relationship_to_ozone_depletion)
7.3 Relationship to global dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Relationship_to_global_dimming)
7.4 Pre-human global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Pre-human_global_warming)
7.5 Pre-industrial global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Pre-industrial_global_warming)
8 Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Notes)
9 References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#References)
10 See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#See_also)
11 External links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#External_links)
11.1 Scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Scientific)
11.2 Polar ice-related links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Polar_ice-related_links)
11.3 Other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Other)
Relative to the period 1860–1900, global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.4 °F), according to the instrumental temperature record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record). Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C/decade against 0.13 °C/decade (Smith, 2005). Temperatures in the lower troposphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere) have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements). Over the one or two thousand years before 1850, world temperature is believed to have been relatively stable, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period) or the Little Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age).


Based on estimates by NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA)'s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddard_Institute_for_Space_Studies), 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree. Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Meteorological_Organization) and the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) Climatic Research Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit) concluded that 2005 was still only the second warmest year, behind 1998.<sup id="_ref-2" class="reference">[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-2)</sup><sup id="_ref-3" class="reference">[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-3)</sup>
<sup id="_ref-3" class="reference">
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-3)</sup>
Depending on the time frame, a number of temperature records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record) are available based on different data sets. The longest perspective is available from various proxy records for recent millennia; see temperature record of the past 1000 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years) for a discussion of these records and their differences. An approximately global instrumental record of temperature near the earth's surface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record) begins in about 1860. Global observations of the atmosphere well above the earth's surface using data from radiosondes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosondes) began shortly after World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). Satellite temperature measurements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements) of the tropospheric temperature date from 1979. The attribution of recent climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change) is clearest for the most recent period of the last 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available.


Main articles: Attribution of recent climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change) and Scientific opinion on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
The climate system varies both through natural, "internal" processes as well as in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human and non-human causes, including solar activity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity), volcanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano) emissions, and greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas). Climatologists agree that the earth has warmed recently. The detailed causes of this change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change) remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the recent warming. Outside of the scientific community, however, this conclusion can be controversial.


Adding carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) (CO₂) or methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane) (CH₄) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect) without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and methane will be, when allowing for compounding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback) or mitigating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback) factors.


One example of an important feedback process is ice-albedo feedback. The increased CO₂ in the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface and leads to melting of ice near the poles. As the ice melts, land or open water takes its place. Both land and open water are on average less reflective than ice, and thus absorb more solar radiation. This causes more warming, which in turn causes more melting, and the cycle continues.


Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects, the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed by increased greenhouse gases. Climate commitment studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_commitment_studies) indicate that, even if greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) were stabilized at present day levels, a further warming of perhaps 0.5 °C to 1.0 °C (0.9–1.8 °F) would still occur.




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png



Global warming is expected to influence both the natural environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment) and human life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization). Some anticipated effects include sea level rise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise), repercussions to agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_and_agriculture), possible slowing of the thermohaline circulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation), glacier retreat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850), reductions in the ozone layer, increased intensity and frequency of hurricanes and extreme weather events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#More_extreme_weather), lowering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification) of Ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean) pH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH), and the spread of disease. In some cases, the effects may already be manifest, although it is difficult to attribute specific incidents of natural phenomena to long-term global warming.


The extent and probability of these consequences is a matter of considerable uncertainty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy). A summary of probable effects and recent understanding can be found in the report of the IPCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC) Working Group II [13] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm).




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[Ninjafied]

Learned something new right there... or atleast heard a different spin on stuff

Michael Crichton's State of Fear dives right into the concept of the power and money behind the green movement.
Ficton, but a great story. A quick read if you have the time.

[N.O.Bronco]

Michael Crichton's State of Fear dives right into the concept of the power and money behind the green movement.
Ficton, but a great story. A quick read if you have the time.

Exactlly its Fiction written by a guy who has no credentials in the area, unless medical school started teaching enviorenmental science. But according to my medschool friend that anwser is No.

[W*GS]

“Here are the basic facts you need to know:
Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon.

"Billions"?

Where do I get my share?

Several problems with these "basic facts" - there is no "billions of dollars of grant money". The entire US research budget devoted to studying global warming is a fraction of that - and that's including studying lots of things that aren't directly related to global warming.

Additionally, there are a number of climate change "skeptics" who have received some money from fossil fuel interests. That damages their credibility.

Lastly, the piece from which this comes is a mere op/ed piece - from someone with a severe case of sour grapes, it seems to me. Naming Christy and Gray (two scientists known quite well as "skeptics") is just about par for the course.

Trust me - you don't want to debate me on this issue. I know of what I speak. Very well.

[Taco John]

This is one of those topics like the earth revolving around the sun, or the world being flat, where the hardline, unyeilding conservatives end up looking like buffoons when it's all said and done.

It's ok to admit that global warming exists, and still not agree that man is the cause of it. At least that way, you've got an intellectual stake in the actual discussion. There's enough evidence by now to pretty well put the fact that the phenomenon of "global warming" exists to bed by now. Whether man is the cause or not is where the real discussion is at this point... at least for people who actually take new facts and apply them to their world view.

[Rascal]

Anybody else notice a collection of scientiests and evangelicals grouping up to talk about the environmental problems (agreeing on it).

They disagreed about whether the earth was created in one second or a million years, but they put that aside to agree that what was being done needs to be addressed.

[Ninjafied]

"Billions"?

Where do I get my share?

Several problems with these "basic facts" - there is no "billions of dollars of grant money". The entire US research budget devoted to studying global warming is a fraction of that - and that's including studying lots of things that aren't directly related to global warming.


BILLIONS and BILLIONS.
The EPA works in billions and that's a fraction of the federal money. Top that up with individual and charitable contributions and you're well into the several billions range.

[Ninjafied]

Exactlly its Fiction written by a guy who has no credentials in the area, unless medical school started teaching enviorenmental science. But according to my medschool friend that anwser is No.

Complete fiction - agreed. But is it inconceivable that someone might try to make money out of this issue?

[W*GS]

BILLIONS and BILLIONS.
The EPA works in billions and that's a fraction of the federal money. Top that up with individual and charitable contributions and you're well into the several billions range.

There is no "BILLIONS and BILLIONS" being spent on global warming itself.

Please find some proof other than a poorly-written and bitter op/ed blog.

[Meck77]

Global warming or not we need to get a grasp on the pollution we are pumping into our planet. I don't see how this could be a bad thing.

I've noticed a big difference from breathing in air from the brown cloud of Denver vs the cleaner air of northern colorado.

[Ninjafied]

There is no "BILLIONS and BILLIONS" being spent on global warming itself.

Please find some proof other than a poorly-written and bitter op/ed blog.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/444.htm
"we offer a list of some highly-rated charities tackling the issues surrounding global warming. This list is a good place to start, whether you just want to learn more about climate change or whether you want to support the work of charities that strive to discover clean and sustainable energy sources, those that aim to curb deforestation, those that struggle to change policy, or those that protect animals endangered by climate change. "

[W*GS]

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/444.htm
"we offer a list of some highly-rated charities tackling the issues surrounding global warming. This list is a good place to start, whether you just want to learn more about climate change or whether you want to support the work of charities that strive to discover clean and sustainable energy sources, those that aim to curb deforestation, those that struggle to change policy, or those that protect animals endangered by climate change. "

Like I thought - not directly addressing climate change. Certainly the benefits of moving away from fossil fuels aren't just climate-related; wouldn't it be awfully nice to tell the Saudis and Chavez to go stick it?

Suffice to say that climate scientists aren't sitting on huge piles of money they've conned from the gullible folks - a career in science isn't a road to becoming filthy rich.

[defenseman]

Like I thought - not directly addressing climate change. Certainly the benefits of moving away from fossil fuels aren't just climate-related; wouldn't it be awfully nice to tell the Saudis and Chavez to go stick it?

Suffice to say that climate scientists aren't sitting on huge piles of money they've conned from the gullible folks - a career in science isn't a road to becoming filthy rich.

He just told us to "go to hell". My answer, you first Chavez...dman

[alkemical]

He just told us to "go to hell". My answer, you first Chavez...dman

"via con dios"

Or you could do

"Yes, but ladies first"

*Gunshot*

[defenseman]

"via con dios"

Or you could do

"Yes, but ladies first"

*Gunshot*


Works for me...dman

[Ninjafied]

Like I thought - not directly addressing climate change. Certainly the benefits of moving away from fossil fuels aren't just climate-related; wouldn't it be awfully nice to tell the Saudis and Chavez to go stick it?

Suffice to say that climate scientists aren't sitting on huge piles of money they've conned from the gullible folks - a career in science isn't a road to becoming filthy rich.

How is “tackling the issues surrounding global warming” not directly addressing climate change? All of these charities have an interest in global warming and their causes are directly effected by how much media attention the issue draws.
These charities also have to address and attract their local interests too. Don’t be distracted because some issues are better resolved when broken up into pieces rather then taking on the entire thing on as a whole. What more would you like to see in this field?

Now, take a look at one of the charities (the fewer stars make better examples). EG. Environmental Defense, with 400,000 completely non-gullible members, spent 3.7 million in admin and about three times that on fundraising. You’re right, the charity’s president isn’t rich when he rakes in just 357K per year and probably free travel costs, but you have to figure that the rest of the amount is creating tons of jobs. That’s just one charity; there are many more. It’s a system now; a system with billions.

[W*GS]

How is “tackling the issues surrounding global warming” not directly addressing climate change?

Some groups can get additional mileage from claiming that their specific interest is related in some way to climate change. Groups that intend to protect animals, for example. However, those of us directly involved in studying climate change don't see a single dime of the moneys they collect.

Seems to me your beef is with so-called "environmental" groups as a whole, who at times exploit the issue of climate change for their own agendae. Don't knock those of us doing the science for how it gets used. We can't control it to that extent, nor do we see the dollars that result from charitable giving. It might be nice if we did - but that would taint the work.

Certainly those on the "other" side of the climate change issue have no moral restraint in spending money and manipulating the science so it appears to support their view of things...

[alkemical]

How long have you been studying global climate change Wags? (Honest interest, no sneak attacks)

I remember some details from "yore" about you (here and there stuff - as far as related work, etc) -

[W*GS]

How long have you been studying global climate change Wags?

More than 20 years.

[alkemical]

More than 20 years.

It's gotta be sort of like the nature/nurture argument.

You have enough evidence for both - yet the truth lies in the middle. At least that's my POV.



Hey wags - i read a few anti-trust lawsuits (US v. Microsoft - etc) - and i do see your POV on how anti-trust litigation is used by lesser competitiors to not allow fair competition - as well as a monopoly is only illegal if the state says it is (since there is state sponsored monopolies, etc) -

So i think i've defined a bit of my aspect of being pro-free market - but anti-private industry.

Yeah i'm a dork - sue me... ;)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Bush challenged again before State of Union speech.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Big US firms urge Bush to tackle global warming
by Justin Cole 1 hour, 57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Some of corporate America's largest companies, including Alcoa, General Electric and DuPont, urged US President George W. Bush and the Congress to act swiftly to tackle global warming.

The chief executives of nine US corporations, who have formed the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), presented a united front as they urged Bush to support mandatory caps on businesses' greenhouse gas emissions.

"We should have goals that are visible," GE chief executive Jeffrey Immelt told reporters at a press conference at the National Press Club here.

The powerful USCAP coalition, whose members run dozens of industrial plants, also called for urgent US government action to implement a cap-and-trade program, which would enable the trading of emissions permits.

The corporate chieftains said cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, which many scientists blame for global warming, make sense environmentally but now also make good business sense and would help the US cut its addiction to oil.

The corporations issued their call to arms a day before the US president makes his annual State of the Union speech. Some pundits believe Bush may address climate change in his remarks.

Bush has previously said that he does not support mandatory government emission caps on US industry and his administration in 2001 withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to curb greenhouse gases.

The Alcoa and GE chiefs, Alain Belda and Immelt respectively, were backed at the press conference by the CEOs of PG and E, Lehman Brothers, FPL Group, DuPont, Caterpillar, Duke Energy and PNM Resources.

The executives said they wanted other US firms to join their alliance.

The Texas-based utility TXU Corp. said in a statement that some of USCAP's aims were consistent with its position, and also expressed "growing concern" about climate change.

USCAP's members, who began meeting last summer, called on the new Democratic-controlled Congress to establish mandatory targets that would allow only a five percent rise in current US greenhouse gas emissions within five years of legislative action.

Future targets should then seek to cut emissions to between 70 and 90 percent of today's levels within fifteen years, and emissions should be slashed by between 60 and 80 percent from current levels by 2050.

Immelt said "information exchanges" had occurred with the Bush administration over the group's proposals.

Asked by AFP if the White House was supportive of USCAP's position, Immelt replied:"Yeah, but it's one of those things where you're going to have lots of different points of view.

"But, in general I would say it's a friendly discussion, not an unfriendly discussion."

USCAP also groups the non-governmental Environmental Defense group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the World Resources Institute.

Eileen Claussen, the president of the Pew climate center, said USCAP had briefed a bipartisan group of lawmakers on their objectives.

Several bills have already been inked by Democratic lawmakers eager to address climate change since the party regained control of Congress this month.

Big US corporations have begun showing increased concerns about global warming in recent years, especially since Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf coast in August 2005.

US insurers State Farm and Allstate are not seeking new home insurance business along wide stretches of the US east coast amid fears of bigger hurricanes, which some scientists have attributed to climate change.