Global Warming - Federal Study

[Ukulele Ike]

According to this morning's NY TIMES, the first Federal report on the effects of the growth in greenhouse gases on the planet will be released today. Available on the net at http://www.nacc.usgcrp.gov

The report estimates the potential effects of further warming by using a "business as usual" assumption, in which CO2 levels continue to grow at the rate of recent years. At this pace, the average temperature in the U.S. would rise five to ten degrees over the next century.

The report cites some "benefits" of continued warming, including "rising yields and falling prices for food crops and timber."

Um. Am I being an alarmist here, or can we look forward to "Global Warming is GOOD BUSINESS" ads from the gummint, especially if Business Boy Bush gets into the White House?

My feeling has always been one of "You fuck the environment, the environment will fuck you right back." But this smacks to me of "We're screwing up the planet, and it will be a GOOD thing." Can we expect to see this sort of propaganda, do you think?

[Phobos]

That kind of propoganda is already out there. I find it to be a oversimplistic mentality. CO2 = plantfood, therefore, more CO2 = more plants = good. If we don't first cut down all the trees, then perhaps there would be a brief growth period resulting from higher CO2 levels. But our species is adapted to a certain environment. If that goes, we may too. Either way, it's an uncontrolled experiment with an uncertain outcome and global consequences.

[Phobos]

"an oversimplistic" :o

[Arnold Winkelried]

All I want is the Pacific Ocean to rise just enough to get over the hill and end at my doorstep. Then I'll have beachfront property without all the trouble that Lex Luthor wanted to go to (atomic bombs in the San Andreas fault.)

[BigJoe]

The largest problem is that people don't want to pay the price to fix the problem. Note the howling about gas prices, recently. Rather than purchase a more efficient vehicle, they whine about the price - but keep buying bigger SUVs. They want somebody to Do Something, but they keep doing what they want, when they want, how they want.

Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. There are three basic options:

1. Slow down combustion to the point the biosphere can handle the CO2 produced. (Fat Chance)

2. Capture the bulk of CO2 at the point of production and sequester it artificially. (Yeah Right) (For details, see the February 2000 issue of Scientific American)

3. Put up with the greenhouse effects. (Are You Nuts?)

Option 1 would drive prices through the roof. The lion's share of our energy (including electric) is provided through combustion. That is because it has the lowest immeadiate cost. Alternate sources will be more expensive. (Won't bother you with my Nuclear Phobia Is Stupid rant)

Option 2 would be nearly as expensive as option 1. Plus it still has the uncertainties of a large scale, irreversable experiment.

Option 3 has already been addressed.

The NIMBY effect prevails. Only this time, when you see the effects in the back yard, it's going to be too late to fix. Hope I already have a condo on the L4 Habitat when this thing comes home to roost. :)

(Eh Gad! I sound like a tree hugger, here! I'm usually a good little Republican, honest.)

[Ike Witt]

Does this government report (no I haven't read it) PROVE that global warming exists? I do agree that pouring all the gases in to the atmoshpere is not a good idea, but can someone prove that higher temperatures are caused by this? Records have not been kept long enough to determine if human activity is causing raising temps, or if they are due to long term (read geological) effects that we don't yet know about?

[tracer]

adam yax:

The only evidence I've seen for industrially-caused global warming was what I saw on a Nova/Frontline special on PBS. There were two pieces of strongly-presented evidence:

1. By using old weather reports, short ice cores, and a number of other methods, we have determined that the global average temperature in the last half century has been 1/2 a degree Celsius higher than at any other time in the last 1000 years. We do not have reliable data for average temperatures more than 1000 years ago.

2. By using deeper ice cores, we have determined that global atmospheric CO2 levels are now higher than they have been in the last 450,000 years. We do not have reliable data for atmospheric CO2 levels more than 450,000 years ago.

So global atmospheric CO2 levels are higher, and global average temperatures are higher. This correlation does not necessarily mean that the higher CO2 levels have caused the higher temperatures, but it's damn good circumstantial evidence -- assuming our methods for determining historical CO2 levels/average temperatures are reliable.

[tracer]

Incidentally, if higher CO2 levels do trigger more vigorous plant growth, all the newly-growing plants will suck up some of this excess CO2 and thereby help to moderate the atmospheric CO2 level.

What we really need is some good data on CO2 levels in the Cretaceous. The Age of the Dinosaurs apparently boasted significantly higher global average temperatures than what we have today, as well as lush plant growth. If high CO2 levels were responsible for this warm period, then we already have a model for what a globally-warmed Earth might look like.

[Dumbguy]

Incidentally, if higher CO2 levels do trigger more vigorous plant growth, all the newly-growing plants will suck up some of this excess CO2 and thereby help to moderate the atmospheric CO2 level.


I think I saw that same Nova episode you mentioned (or something similar), and one experiment had found that increased plant growth will mitigate CO2 levels for a while, but the plants eventually reach a carbon saturation point and can't absorb any more.

[Phobos]

adam yax...from what I heard on NPR about that report is that it did not prove that global warming is occurring, but instead, it's goal was to try to figure out what would happen regionally assuming that global warming is a fact. The study used a couple of the more reliable computer models that show global warming trends, and they assumed the current trend (e.g., current production of CO2) would continue.

[Typo Negative]

I, for one, am pissed off about this global warming thing bcause it's suposed to be 110 degrees today in our beautiful valley.

[Odesio]

I, for one, am pissed off about this global warming thing bcause it's suposed to be 110 degrees today in our beautiful valley.


Death Valley?

Marc

[Mr.Zambezi]

So global atmospheric CO2 levels are higher, and global average temperatures are higher. This correlation does not necessarily mean that the higher CO2 levels have caused the higher temperatures, but it's damn good circumstantial evidence -- assuming our methods for determining historical CO2 levels/average temperatures are reliable.

Exactly the problem: correlation.

Scientific American did an article on this in either the april or May issue. THe conclusion was that no scientificly sound conclusion can be drawn regarding the cause of global warming. The article stated that this is what VP Gore's top scientific advisors told hi.....and he chose to ignore. Evidence on the polar Ice shelf suggests that the change in global climat is actually cyclical.

Let us not forget that we currently have a Vice President who is running for president and who has already dran a conclusion regarding this hot political issue.

Let us also not forget that many scientists were convinced that we were facing another ice age onlt 20 years ago:

An increase by only a factor of four in global aerosol background concentration ,ay be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 degrees Kelvin...sufficient to trigger an ice age
-- Dr.S.I Rasool and Dr. S.H. Schneider July 9, 1971

Furthermore, let us not forget that Schneider is now calling out warnings about global warming.

don't believe the hype....

[Phobos]

...but don't proceed blindly either :)

[Steve-o]

The only evidence I've seen for industrially-caused global warming was what I saw on a Nova/Frontline special on PBS. There were two pieces of strongly-presented evidence:

1. By using old weather reports, short ice cores, and a number of other methods, we have determined that the global average temperature in the last half century has been 1/2 a degree Celsius higher than at any other time in the last 1000 years. We do not have reliable data for average temperatures more than 1000 years ago.
2. ...

So global atmospheric CO2 levels are higher, and global average temperatures are higher. This correlation does not necessarily mean that the higher CO2 levels have caused the higher temperatures, but it's damn good circumstantial evidence -- assuming our methods for determining historical CO2 levels/average temperatures are reliable.


Actually, I have a textbook right here (Environmental Chemistry by Colin Baird) that has a graph (reprinted from Chemical and Engineering News) of global average air temperature over time, representing the last 1000 years. It shows about a 250 year period from about 1100 AD to about 1350 AD where the global average air temperature was HIGHER than it was when the book was printed (1995 – basically now on this large of a scale).

Also of note... it shows that the average rate of temperature increase has been the same since about 1675. I’m no history buff, but I don’t think that the internal combustion engine was very popular in 1675. Taking that into account, I would say that the circumstantial evidence for the higher CO2 levels causing higher temperatures is actually pretty crappy.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Say, how did we create enough CO2 during the Ice age to warm the place up? Did Mammoths run on petroleum?

[Dumbguy]

Exactly the problem: correlation.


Unless you have a spare Earth handy to use as a control group, that's the only kind of data we're likely to get.


THe conclusion was that no scientificly sound conclusion can be drawn regarding the cause of global warming.


True, a lot of the research surrounding the issue is biased or contradictory. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to conclude that there is no issue. Inconclusive doesn't mean insignificant.


Let us not forget that we currently have a Vice President who is running for president and who has already dran a conclusion regarding this hot political issue.

Let us also not forget that many scientists were convinced that we were facing another ice age onlt 20 years ago


What are you arguing here? Sometimes scientists are wrong. Politicians are not motivaed by pureness of heart. True and true. Does that mean that any related issue is immediately rendered moot. We wouldn't have much left to talk about. What's the worst that could happen here? We'll think about more efficient energy use? Why would that be so distasteful?

[Mr.Zambezi]

True, a lot of the research surrounding the issue is biased or contradictory. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to conclude that there is no issue. Inconclusive doesn't mean insignificant.

ICe cream sales are increasing this summer. Drowning deaths are increasing at the same rate. They also decrease as sales go down on certain days. There may be no correlation, but just to be safe, we should put a high tax and strict controls on ice cream. After all, there may be a correlation.

Sometimes scientists are wrong. Politicians are not motivaed by pureness of heart. True and true. Does that mean that any related issue is immediately rendered moot. We wouldn't have much left to talk about. What's the worst that could happen here? We'll think about more efficient energy use? Why would that be so distasteful?

Should we create expensive national programs, increased gas taxes, expensive controls on energy, restrictions on where you can build your house, just because Gore has decided to ignore the facts and created a national panic over some threat that could very well not exist?

You sound remarkably like Dr. Schneider, whom I quoted above. Here is another gem, and one that I think you are agreeing with:
[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

By the way, one does not need an apocalypse to encourage efficient energy use or lower pollution. Both have improved steadily since 1970.

[tracer]

Mr.Zambezi wrote:

By the way, one does not need an apocalypse to encourage efficient energy use or lower pollution. Both have improved steadily since 1970.

Minor nitpick: We did have an apocalypse of sorts in 1973, when OPEC instituted its big international oil embargo. Before 1973, no American cared how fuel efficient his car was, so long as his gas tank was big enough; for a decade or so after 1973, high EPA gas mileage ratings were advertised proudly for new cars that had them.

[Ike Witt]

Actually, I have a textbook right here (Environmental Chemistry by Colin Baird) that has a graph (reprinted from Chemical and Engineering News) of global average air temperature over time, representing the last 1000 years. It shows about a 250 year period from about 1100 AD to about 1350 AD where the global average air temperature was HIGHER than it was when the book was printed (1995 – basically now on this large of a scale).

Also of note... it shows that the average rate of temperature increase has been the same since about 1675. I’m no history buff, but I don’t think that the internal combustion engine was very popular in 1675. Taking that into account, I would say that the circumstantial evidence for the higher CO2 levels causing higher temperatures is actually pretty crappy.



Hmmm, I don't know if I'd trust records of average air temperature from 1000 years ago. Where are these records kept and what units are they measured in?

[tracer]

Steve-o wrote:

The only evidence I've seen for industrially-caused global warming was what I saw on a Nova/Frontline special on PBS. There were two pieces of strongly-presented evidence:

1. By using old weather reports, short ice cores, and a number of other methods, we have determined that the global average temperature in the last half century has been 1/2 a degree Celsius higher than at any other time in the last 1000 years. We do not have reliable data for average temperatures more than 1000 years ago.

Actually, I have a textbook right here (Environmental Chemistry by Colin Baird) that has a graph (reprinted from Chemical and Engineering News) of global average air temperature over time, representing the last 1000 years. It shows about a 250 year period from about 1100 AD to about 1350 AD where the global average air temperature was HIGHER than it was when the book was printed (1995 – basically now on this large of a scale).

Darn it, how am I going to have an informed opinion on this topic when the data contradict each other like this?! Sheesh, I can't even trust the data presented on a NOVA episode as being conclusive anymore.

... Unless, of course, the global average temperature reported in that textbook 5 years ago was based on less-than-conclusive data that has since been improved....

[tracer]

adam yax wrote:

Hmmm, I don't know if I'd trust records of average air temperature from 1000 years ago. Where are these records kept

In Greenland's ice sheet, retrieved by drilling ice cores, I believe.

and what units are they measured in?

Um ... centimeters. ;)

[Dumbguy]

ICe cream sales are increasing this summer. Drowning deaths are increasing at the same rate. They also decrease as sales go down on certain days. There may be no correlation, but just to be safe, we should put a high tax and strict controls on ice cream. After all, there may be a correlation.

I'm aware of the shortcomings of correlational data. Scientists prefer not to use it, but if it can't be avoided they generally endeavor not to make assinine conclusions like you just did. This issue didn't arise from correlational data. It's a fairly reasonble inquiry. Carbon in the atmosphere helps retain heat. If there's more carbon, will there be more heat? Then look at correlational data.


Should we create expensive national programs, increased gas taxes, expensive controls on energy, restrictions on where you can build your house, just because Gore has decided to ignore the facts and created a national panic over some threat that could very well not exist?

Lord, you're prone to histrionics:

"Should we create expensive national programs" -Yes if they're valuable and promote the public good.
"increased gas taxes" - Who mentioned that? Are you arguing with Dr. Schneider? He's not here.[/b]
"expensive controls on energy" - I was talking about efficient energy use, which would save money, wouldn't it?
"restrictions on where you can build your house" -We already have these. In spades. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if we can save energy through city planning, what's the problem?
"just because Gore has decided to ignore the facts " - Why do you keep trying to associate this with Gore? He didn't invent this issue any more than he invented the internet. He's a hanger-on, and discrediting him doesn't address the point.
"and created a national panic over some threat that could very well not exist" -I haven't seen any evidence of a national panic.


You sound remarkably like Dr. Schneider, whom I quoted above.

I sound like Dr. Schneider to the extent that you choose to ignore what I'm saying and carry on a dialog with the evil, liberal pixies in your head.

[divemaster]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Good quote Mr. Zambezi; here's a corollay, from the July 6, 1992 issue of the New Republic:
Lately, Al Gore and the distinguished biologist Paul Ehrlich have ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because in such reports, in Gore's words 'undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take.'

Isn't the hushing up of opposing evidence one of the first signs a group feels it is about to be discredited?


concerning anthropogenic CO2 and warming trends:

Most of the warming observed in the last century occurred prior to 1938, well before the marked increase in greenhouse gas levels. Human Impacts on Weather and Climate (1992), and others.

This is a very famous graph in climate circles, with a pronounced temperature spike before 1940, and what is probably natural variability since then.

"It is tempting to attribute the past century's warming to the increase in greenhouse gases. Because of the natural variation of temperatures, however, such an attribution cannot be made with any degree of confidence." Science 244, 1041-1043 (1989)

There is more in dissent. Much more. Even 10 or so years more recent than the above references. See anything climatologist Patrick Michaels has written, including an article that was published in newspapers just a couple of weeks ago. Natural variability, folks. Natural variability.

There's nothing wrong with sensible policy based on good science. There is definitely something wrong with basing extreme economic and production policies on shaky science. That doesn't mean the earth isn't warming, necessarily. But I submit that us spending billions upon billions to stop it isn't going to do much good. In fact, I think it will be economically crippling.

[Steve-o]

I’ve posted this twice before, but since the topic seems to be relevant, I’ll post it again. When I had posted this both times before, I was writing from memory. I’ll quote what I had posted the last time, and then add corrections at the bottom (I got my environmental chemistry textbook down from the attic today).



I wouldn't worry much about CO2 concentration increases (or decreases to "fix" the "problem"). In regards to increases in CO2 concentration causing added warming of our climate, we are at a point where further concentration increases will not cause significant temperature increases. Picture a Cartesian graph of a logarithmic function. Just imagine the shape... numbers are not important. The graph spikes up sharply at first, and then flattens off at the "top". (It may help to draw this) Now transplant that graph shape onto a coordinate system where the X-axis is labeled "Greenhouse Gas Concentration", and the Y-axis is labeled "Atmospheric Temperature Due to Greenhouse Gas", and the near vertical part of the curve intersects the origin. This represents how your typical greenhouse gas affects the Earth's atmospheric temperature. When there is none of it, it obviously has no effect on the atmospheric temperature. Adding just a little will have a sizable effect on temperature (small increase in X value causes a large increase in Y value). Adding a little more gas will have a smaller temperature effect per unit of concentration than the initial introduction of the gas. Adding more gas will have a smaller temperature effect still. Eventually, near the "top" of the graph (where the plot line is near horizontal), adding huge amounts of the gas will have an insignificant effect on atmospheric temperature increase (huge increase in X value causes almost no increase in Y value). With specific regards to the greenhouse gas CO2, we are currently at the "top" of the graph. Dumping gobs (technical term) more CO2 into the atmosphere will have very little effect on our atmospheric temperature.

Simplified, but the greenhouse effect works like this... The sun warms the Earth during the day. The heat (infrared radiation) is given off by the earth. The heat tries to radiate out into space, which would normally keep the Earth very cold at night. The greenhouse gasses are able to absorb the heat. They then re-emit the heat in a random direction. The heat could be sent packing off into space, or it could be sent back to Earth. It could even be sent toward another greenhouse molecule, which would absorb the heat, and later re-emit it in a random direction. The net result is that some of the heat eventually escapes to space, and some stays in the atmosphere until the Sun warms us up again the next day.

If you are worried about global warming, there are greenhouse gasses that are in the earlier phase of the graph, where small concentration increases will cause noticeable atmospheric warming. Methane (natural gas) is one. If it is burned properly (as is seen at many refineries as stack flares), it is converted into your standard combustion products (CO2 and H2O), and there's nothing to worry about (although most methane in the atmosphere is the result of rotting organic matter, and is not burned). Water vapor is also in the "early" phase of the graph, but it has a quick acting natural sink (rain). CFC's are in the "early" part of the graph, but amount to a very small fraction of the gasses responsible for the greenhouse effect. It may sound as if I am trying to discount the effects of some of these "early" phase gasses, so to be fair, the CFC's and the methane are much more potent than CO2 at creating the greenhouse effect. IIRC, the methane can cause an atmospheric temperature increase (molecule for molecule) 23X greater than CO2. Also, IIRC, depending on the CFC, they can cause over 100X greater atmospheric temperature increases when compared to CO2.



Corrections in order.

1. At the end of the first quoted paragraph, where I wrote “With specific regards to the greenhouse gas CO2, we are currently at the "top" of the graph”, I should have written “With specific regards to the greenhouse gas CO2, we are currently very near to the "top" of the graph.” The point remains the same though.

2. At the end of the quote, I wrote “IIRC, depending on the CFC, they can cause over 100X greater atmospheric temperature increases when compared to CO2.” Well, it looks as if my memory was quite faulty. Now that I look it up, depending on the CFC, it can cause over 14,000X greater atmospheric temperature increases when compared to CO2 (molecule for molecule). Even with that much warming capability, my calculation shows that CFC’s are in such low concentrations in the atmosphere that they account for only about 2% of total greenhouse warming (this calculation ignores the effects of H2O since it has a reliable sink (rain)).

3. I failed to mention N2O, which has 270X the warming capacity of CO2 molecule for molecule. The atmospheric concentration of N2O has been rising at about a constant rate for the last 300 years. I could not find a curve for N2O like the one I described for CO2, so I don’t know where we are on it. N2O accounts for 17% of the greenhouse warming (again ignoring H2O when calculating the percentage).

4. CO2 accounts for 72%; and methane accounts for 8% of the greenhouse warming (both calculated ignoring the contribution from H2O).

I think that’s it. Whew...

[Typo Negative]

I, for one, am pissed off about this global warming thing bcause it's suposed to be 110 degrees today in our beautiful valley.


Death Valley?

Marc


No. no. Southern California's beautiful San Fernando Valley.
But the temps are right on par with Death Valley.

[Mr.Zambezi]

OK, dumbguy, first you ask What's the worst that could happen here? We'll think about more efficient energy use? Why would that be so distasteful?

Then I give you some bad things that can happen and you say that I am engaging in "histrionics." next time you ask the worst that can happen, I will ansewer with the best that can happen so as not to be histrionic.

I bring Gore into the debate because he is the one most likeley to bring about new policies should he get elected. He poses the biggest threat.

and as far as a national panis, we are teaching school children that the ice caps are going to melt, we are passing laws on CO2 production, we are calling global conferences on global warming and are including the reduction in global warming in our trade agreements with outher countries. We don't care this much about human rights. I call it a national panic. You can call it a minor concern if you like.

A Tracer pointed out fuel efficiency came from a market driven need. A desire for clean air, liveable cities and cheaper energy will drive efficiency. We don't need Chicken Little dommsday prophesies.

Many good sources have been cirted as to why Global warming is most likely not an issue. I wont reiterate their points. but you are free to bring evidence to the contrary.

If you think we should make public policy based on dubious conclusions and contradictory data, Bully for you! You should probably also start chemotherapy for that mole on your arm. It probably isn't cancer, but it might be and you don't want to take any chances. You only have one body.

[Dumbguy]

If you think we should make public policy based on dubious conclusions and contradictory data, Bully for you!


This is why I accused you of histrionics. I haven't proposed policy of any kind. Your insistence on arguing against points I haven't made is frustrating.

[sqweels]

This is a long-term, slow burn issue. There aren't going to be any radical, expensive policies implemented in the next couple of years even if Gore is elected. What we do need to do is press forward with the research to resolve some of the inconclusiveness and continue developing cleaner technologies as well as contingency plans for dealing with the crisis down the road. This will cost some money, but not nearly as much as, say, a missle defense program.

A question that must be asked is, what motivates those who voice skepticism as to the risks of global warming and other environmental threats? Is it scientific prudence? Or is it hatred of liberals/tree huggers/Al Gore and a desire to save money? Some fundies believe these are the "end times" and so all such long-term problems are moot (some even believe that homosexuality is the greatest to the environment). So if you're a conservative, what credibility do you have while voicing skepticism?

True, some folks embrace environmentalism as an extension of their 60's-style rebellion against the "establishment", but Al Gore isn't one of these, and neither am I, and neither are most climatologists who argue that global warming is real.

fuel efficiency came from a market driven need. A desire for clean air, liveable cities and cheaper energy will drive efficiency. We don't need Chicken Little dommsday prophesies.

Nonsense. Consumers make descisions based on short-term self-interest. Individuals' desire to save money on gas jibed with overall efforts to reduce auto emissions and petroleum consumption. But you cannot perceptibly affect the quality of the air you breathe by buying a certain kind of car since everyone else's car is still there. And as we've seen in recent years, as the relative price of gas decreases, people care about it less and buy cars based on other factors, like roominess, performance, and safety, hence the SUV. Cheaper energy is not cleaner energy.

And warm air is not neccessarily unclean air. As the OP suggested, there may be dubious benefits to global warming which would further erode public support for adressing it.


If you think we should make public policy based on dubious conclusions and contradictory data, Bully for you! You should probably also start chemotherapy for that mole on your arm. It probably isn't cancer, but it might be and you don't want to take any chances.

But you wouldn't insist that it wasn't cancer and that the doctor who told you it might be is a quack. You'd continue to have it tested until you got a definitive answer. You'd also prepare yourself, both psychologically and financially, for the liklihood that you might indeed have to go in for treatment before long.



Nonsense

[Mr.Zambezi]

Sorry Dumb. I made some assumptions about your position here. Generally, when people argue that global warming is real, they want to do something about it. I appologize if I read you wrong.

Sqweels said:
What we do need to do is press forward with the research to resolve some of the inconclusiveness and continue developing cleaner technologies as well as contingency plans for dealing with the crisis down the road.

I agree. More scientific and unbiased studies must be done. Fuel efficiency should be pursued, if for no other resason to loosen the grip that OPEC has on us.

A question that must be asked is, what motivates those who voice skepticism as to the risks of global warming and other environmental threats? Is it scientific prudence? Or is it hatred of liberals/tree huggers/Al Gore and a desire to save money?
Surely there are some who don't bother to look into the evidence and have a knee jerk reaction because of their political bent. This happens in both camps.
True, some folks embrace environmentalism as an extension of their 60's-style rebellion against the "establishment", but Al Gore isn't one of these, and neither am I, and neither are most climatologists who argue that global warming is real. Gore has said that the issue is decided and refuses to acknowledge dissenting evidence. He was told by his own advisors that the evidence was not conclusive on global warming, yet he continues to insist that it is. Therefore, he is a liar and a knave. Furthermore, Gore became interested in this issue at a time when he was anti establishment (was against the vietnam war, uncovered corrupt politicians in Tenessee, smoked pot and went around in long hair -- I get thsi from his bio, The Making of Al Gore.)

I will have to get that issue of Scientific American and quote the evidence from the scientists in the article. IT is not a closed issue, teh evidence is very contradictory

[Dumbguy]

Sorry Dumb. I made some assumptions about your position here. Generally, when people argue that global warming is real, they want to do something about it. I appologize if I read you wrong.

We're all friends here. Or total strangers. Same thing. For the record, I wasn't even arguing that it's real. I just don't think it should be casually dismissed. All I was trying to say (with an impressive lack of success) was that 1) yes, the research is inconclusive, but we should keep looking into it 2) using energy as efficiently as possible is a good idea regardless of how the global warming hoo-ha falls out. Then you come out with:


More scientific and unbiased studies must be done. Fuel efficiency should be pursued, if for no other resason to loosen the grip that OPEC has on us.


Lord love a duck. What the hell were we arguing about?

[Mr.Zambezi]

Dumb, it is the downfall of the written word....er, that and my knee jerk reaction finely honed from having a wife, friends and family who argue with me incessantly about this issue.

I could have read differently into your posts, but instead transposed the ideas of others onto them. I have got to stop reading "the Making of Al Gore". It is poisoning my mind.

"must...ugh...burn...straw....man........."