With the conclusion of the recent Bali Conference on global warming the United States has yet again been perceived as putting a spanner in the works. An agreement was reached but not the kind of agreement the majority wanted. Is the American Government wrong, however. Should we bankrupt in the here and now for a future uncertain. Whether you accept the science or not is deliberate impoverishment the job of Government. Economic growth has been and remains the mantra of free trade liberal politics. It becomes increasingly clear that to tackle global warming requires not new targets on Co2 emissions but a radical change in the World economic, monetary and trading system. In other words a political revolution something that no one is willing to contemplate. Capitalism is about exploitation, exploiting each other and exploiting the world's resources. As this is not likely to change shouldn't we just accept it and instead of playing games move to make provision for the worse effects of global warming where they may occur. In the United Kingdom we don't even achieve the targets we set ourselves, and the hypocrisy is unbelievable. They are going to build a new terminal at Heathrow when the science tells us that we should be trying to discourage not encourage air travel. But there is a public demand out there - and that's the problem!

Porscha, I think you defined it very well and Eileen added many good comments. The developed countries are expected to take care of the rest of the world which sounds ok in theory but unfortunately there are many exceptions to the list of developing nations that leave only a few including ours to fund the world.

It is not a question of is global warming real, but what really causes it and don't forget in the 80's the same people were scaring us about global cooling. Every statistic in Al Gores Inconvenient Truth was proven to be exaggerated, that doesn't mean nothing was going on but it is the same thing as is the glass half empty or half full. One side is looking at the most likely scenario, the other side is looking at the worst case scenario.

Of course there is the economic side of things which cannot be left out of the solution. The impact can be dramatic and in the end we could be trading one problem for another. The bottom-line to this like so many things is money and the redistribution of it. When developing countries already get aid and don't distribute it to their people but instead build new palaces and pad their bank accounts, can we count on more money being used properly. Let alone, we really don't know what will actually work in reducing global warming. It was said earlier that even the countries that agreed to Kyoto could not meet targets. Maybe the countries that have the money should first figure out what it will take to make a real difference before passing the money around. There are many good ideas out there, but none have been proven to make a real impact on the problem. Throwing money around crazily is not going to solve it in my opinion.

in your answer lies the problem - your company is only at risk because there is a cheaper option elsewhere... if everyone signed up to these processes then there wouldn't be a cheaper option for your customers

I'm not saying I've got the answer - and I'm not saying that it's achievable, but it's not the more eco-friendly solution that's putting your company out of businesses, it's the competition not doing it, and the 'free market economy' that allows your customers to buy from the cheapest option.

admittedly none of this matters when it's you that's out of work.

Everything is fine if I'm fine. Life is a struggle. I know there are more people in the world worse off than better off than me. But I don't live my life according to a sliding scale of impoverishment. I just know that my life is a struggle. I don't need self-serving politicians and middle class eco-warriors telling me that I should make sacrifices in the cause of an indeterminate future. Politicians use enviromental issues to boost their own reputations. Green is good, scepticism as to global warming, and more importantly, the causes of global warming, is bad. The green bandwagon is a very easy one to jump on. But it is not a vote winner. The issues that really concern people remain the same - employment, taxes, healthcare, pensions. I think what really angers me is the sincerity with which these people supposedly speak simply does not match their actions. They meet, as at Bali and Kyoto, and set targets which they probably know won't be met. When they should, as has already been stated, target money and assistance where required, and use the resources and technology we already have to make provision for the worse effects of global warming. Not impose energy saving light bulbs and punitive green taxes which will have little or no impact whatsoever on this the supposedly greatest crisis facing the world today. The U.S Government is, in fact, more honest. Not so much in their agenda but in their tacit acceptance that the economic system to which this crisis can ultimately be traced is not going to change. Indeed it is expanding and the people of the Third World want to enjoy the benefits of consumerism and have greater prosperity just as I do. I'm not a scientist and I'll bow to their superior knowledge, but let's be honest here!

Porscha you are so right about politicians willing to jump on the bandwagon if it benefits them. They tend to go after things that they feel will make them look better. The environmentalists are a big lobby group which influences legislation more than I feel they should.

I am left wondering what the environmentalists really want. At times it seems they want all people gone from the planet, except maybe themselves. Sometimes it seems they want the U.S. to be knocked down a notch or two to even out the playing field. The problem with that is the economic devastation of more than just the U.S. We may disagree with other countries politics but nevertheless we need each other to be as successful as possible.

In the U.S. we have several methods of generating power; hydroelectric, coal or oil burning plants, and nuclear. Environmentalist oppose hydroelectric because it effects the fish. They oppose coal and oil because of pollutants emitted. They oppose nuclear because of possible radiation issues with emissions and waste although newer nuclear plants are by far the most efficient and cleanest energy producing processes. Then there are windmills which require a lot of space to generate sufficient amounts of energy and the same people who want them are the ones that say just not in my backyard. Then there is ethanol made from corn, problem with that is the space required to grow enough also the fact that corn is required for so many food products around the world. Using corn for fuel only runs up the cost of other products which effects nearly every person on the planet.

So again I ask what do the environmentalist really want? It is a double edged sword, I think most people are more than willing to help make the world a cleaner place but they are not willing to go back to the stone age to do it.

Porscha et al
I've read all the posts with great interest. Everyone's points are valid and we all enjoy complaining. Unfortunately, we don't have a solution. For anyone who never read the Dune series, there was a quote in one book "the entrenched bureauocracy remains entrenched." That's the history of our world. Those in power, political or economic, don't want change. Just think of the buggy whip maker. I'm certain he thought his lifestyle would never end.
When push becomes shove and the oil runs out changes will happen.
Merry Christmas
Gracie

Since this has become a book recommendation thread I would like to recommend "An Inconvienent Book" by Glenn Beck, also available if not sold out at most bookstores and Amazon.com. This book is currently #4 on NY Times Bestseller's list after being #1 two weeks ago. This book disproves nearly every scare story in Al Gore's movie "The Inconvienent Truth" with documentation to back it up.

Also here is a link to Newsweek Magazine's scare story about global COOLING April 28, 1975 for all the kids here at TW too young to know about this stuff but eager to jump on the global warming bandwagon.
http://www.denisdutton.co[...]rld.htm

I clearly believe we need to take care of the planet, but we cannot allow those purely with an agenda to hijack our governments. In this case we are talking extreme environmentalists.

Absolutely right, Marsha. I like to imagine I'm still fairly young but I remember being told about global coolling at school. That we should expect and fear the second Ice Age. The guy Who wrote Cool it! Was interviewed on Newsnight, to say the interviewers attitude was patronising is an understatement. Yet he was willing to admit that he had made mistakes in his first book and had reassessed some of his judgements as a consequence. He was particularly interesting when discussing some of the statistics involved which revealed many of the headline grabbing targets for the nonsense they are. There was a programme here on Channel Four which took the sceptical view on the Global Warming Debate ( I use the term debate loosely as that seems to be the last thing that's going on ) it was later released on DVD there was much controversy about this. Some suggested it should be withdrawn from sale or banned. At the same time An Inconvenient Truth is being shown in schools as if it were gospel. Do you ever think you are being railroaded.

Just to throw a spanner in the works...

I watched a documentary on global warming. It was quite scientific and explained the facts that they were representing quite clearly. This is what i understood from the program (my numbers are made up but should be relative to eachother)...

The oceans cover 75% of the earths surface and contains the largest reserve of stored CO2 on the planet, infact the amount of CO2 held in the oceans is massive beyond imagination. The oceans release the CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate depending on the oceans temperature.

Now, the sun has solar cycles, when the sun cools and heats, so do the oceans. The 'coincidence' that the documentary revolved around is that it takes 800 years for the oceans to respond to the suns change in temperature which happens to be exactly the same amount of time that the amount of CO2 in the earths atmosphere changes.

they dug up long tubes of ice from the ploar caps which they use to examine the earths environment over thounsands even millions of years. the samples show that the trace line of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere exactly matched the trace line of the solar temperature but with a lag of 800 years.

i hope i explained that well enough for you to understand?

anyway... that all seemed to make sense to me but what really astonished me was the figures they were saying. they said somthing simular to... the oceans are pumping out somin like 600 billion kila tons of CO2 a year where human activity is outputing somin like 60 million kila tons a year. so, to reiterate, mankind is outputing somin like 0.0001% of the total CO2 output into the atmosphere. seems a little insignificant doesnt it!

the first thing that sprang to mind for me, is that all these evironmentalists, kicking up fuss about the environment have just given the governements another way to charge us additional taxes on CO2 emmisions!

i dont profess to be an expert, just trying to say that it seems people are not looking at the whole picture. maybe our efforts for conservation should be else where.

The trouble is that a lot of the science to do with global warming is not actual science, not science in the truest sense. A lot of the gloable warming science is based on something called The precautionary principle. Which essentially says we can't wait for the science to be proved right or wrong, because, if we wait, and it turns out it is correct then we're screwed (I'd initially typed another word here) so we have to act based on the doomsayers being correct.

I don't necessarily disagree with this logic, but it allows for 'worst case scenarios' to be given more creedence than they might otherwise be allowed. It must be remembered that it's not proven, it's not even a theory that holds up to scutiny, it's not science.

It also allows onedownmanship (it's like one upmanship, but with worse outcomes) and once the precautionary principle is being used you can't argue against worse and worse claims.

Interestingly (and off topic) a lot of the anti terror measures is based on the same logic - lock 'em up without proof, because we daren't wait to be proven right.

(back on topic now) in my eyes it comes down to the following...

global warming, correct or not? dunno to be honest
resources, are they limited? damn right they are.

and so just from a resources point of view - measures need to be taken

I was reading in the observer that America uses 20 tonnes of carbon per person per year, the average in Europe is around 10 tonnes per person per year, China is about 5, and India is about 2.

China and India are going to get a lot worse, but even so they wont be using as much as the average American or European.... it's a bit rich us expecting them to change their ways, whilst we benefit from using up the Planets resources

(sorry about the scattergun approach on this post)

Great responses Anyfer and Porscha. One thing I'm not arguing is whether or not things are warming or cooling, what I argue is whether or not people are causing the change. I don't think people do, nor do I think people can effect any real change. Common things such as volcanic eruptions produce more CO2 then people. The global warming crisis is the biggest scam, possibly in our lifetimes.

Again I care about our planet. I recycle and try to drive efficiently. The real question is should we waist billions of dollars that can be better spent by us, not government.

First I think that blaming Global Warming on Humans is bad science. There are too many indicators that show man is not responsible. Even have my doubts that there really is a global warming problem. Fact is the average temp has been going down for the last 5 years. I believe the UN is looking for more control and money and are riding the "Global Warming" theory to gain that. Look for the UN to try to introduce a tax based on your carbon footprint. Again that is another matter. I can't see any country putting its economy in danger for bad science. I like what NASA administrator Michael Griffin said:

NASA Chief's Climate Comments:
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...3229696&page=1

You might want to take another look
NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/347541/nasa_admits_that_1934_not_1998_was.html
In one more devastating blow against the global warming or "climate Apocalypse" supporters such as former Vice President Al Gore, NASA stated today that it was wrong when it release a report that 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded in modern history.

According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.

And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.

NASA has been forced to correct calculations for temperatures of the last 120 years taken from ground-based measuring facilities. Critics of the man-made global warming theory have long been vocal that these measurements are distorted because the ground, and even more the urban ground where most of these measurements took place, is warmed considerably by human activities and cannot accurately represent atmospheric conditions.

"Much of the current global warming fear has been driven by Hansen's pronouncements, and he routinely claims to have been censored by the Bush administration for his views on warming. Now that NASA, without fanfare, has cleaned up his mess, Hansen has been silent -- I guess we can chalk this up to self-censorship," said Burnett.

then there is:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml


There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

By Bob Carter
Last Updated: 121am BST 09/04/2006

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
advertisement

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

Just saying there are two sides to this story, so I wouldn't take the Global Warming theory as set in stone.

as this page states:
t is virtually shoved down our throats that scientists are in complete agreement about global warming. Al Gore and the media assure us there is an absolute consensus in the scientific community that humans are heating the planet and irreversible damage is looming as a result of man's carbon output. The truth is, there is not an irrefutable consensus. How about some intellectual honesty? Reasonable debate? Or, in the least, a different explanation. Below is one of the largest collections of articles and opinion pieces on the Internet, many written by respected scientists, climatologists, meteorologists and professors who dispute the apocalyptic "man-made" explanation of global warming.

So when you have some spare time, try reading the 250 plus articles on this website:
http://schnittshow.newsradio610.com/globalwarming.html

Not to mention the Pope is even getting into the debate:
And it is the Pope of Rome who is now challenging the orthodoxy of the political aspects of the global warming movement around the world. That, of course, is true acknowledgement of the scientific method: a world apart from the hysteria surrounding the half-baked theories of pseudo-scientists and ignoramuses like Al Gore. Here we have a pope who is defending the protestants of postmodernity, confronting head-on the climate change ‘prophets of doom’ with the warning that any solutions to global warming ‘must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology’.

Has anyone suggested getting off the planet yet? lol

I think a quote from one of Sandi's earlier posts bears repeating:
NASA Chief's Climate Comments:
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Secondly, I think it is fair to say people adapt as do most creatures. With or without global warming the world is changing. An easy example for that is human life expectancy.

The question remains where should we throw our money? Questionable newer technology such as wind farms, redistribution of wealth so poor nations can upgrade their technology, or maybe some type of real incentive for industry to develope new technology that will replace fossil fuels altogether. When I say new incentive I don't mean giving out huge fines which really only amounts to redistribution of wealth. I am thinking something more like a multi-billion dollar prize.

I think the biggest difference between an extreme liberal approach and a conservative approach is liberals want to cause change by regulations and redistribution of wealth, whereas conservatives want industry to create new technology and be rewarded for it. I believe the socialistic approach has removed most if not all incentive for companies to develope new technology. Just who does the U.N. plan on giving monies collected by a carbon footprint tax?

Marsha, the true conservatives that are currently in government have no interest in creating new technology. As long as they are making money off of the old systems then nothing will change. If they look towards the future then they would see that there is interest in new technology as the oil bubble will burst. Mary Grace's ominous post about this struck a chord with me.

The thing that scares me the most about climate change is that it will effect poor people on the coastal areas. The underdeveloped countries have no means of infrastructure to deal with the large scale flooding that is to come. It is scary because we are talking about death tolls that have never been seen before. I know this sounds like a scare tactic but I am with the majority of the scientific community. Global warming is a fact and a serious threat.

Now, I don't think the environmentalists are asking for much with proposed caps. Dumping toxic chemicals into nature is like shatting in our own backyard. Whether or not there is global warming, pollution must be severely curbed. And really the profit margins of the international companies in question is quite large. They would take a hit yes but if they were not so greedy then the workers would not be hit as hard. And where the heck does income redistribution come into play here Marsha? Please don't lump all liberals as wanting Marxist policies.

I didn't want to jump in earlier as I knew I would go off but se la vi. I do value your girls opinions. Good to at least have a dialog.

mwah
Summer Sunshine Q

Q, I don't mind your opinion either and agree with several of your points especially curbing pollution. The income redistribution part comes in play when entities such as the U.N. think they should tax carbon footprints which obviously industrialized nations would pay the burden inorder to send the money to greedy dictator nations that don't do anything for their people. As for oceans rising, I live 500 feet from tidal waters, my house is 15.5 feet above sealevel and I have no intentions of moving anytime soon. Most scientist believe should sealevels rise it will be inches to a few feet at most spread out over the next century, not Al Gore's 30 feet. Sure that would effect areas, but people adapt, even poor people have been around for centuries.

As for greedy corporations, the only realistic complaint is how much money CEO's make which in reality is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of jobs they create and the thousands upon thousands of stock holders who invest in these companies. You cannot use the job outsourcing as an argument either because on one hand your saying we need to help these poor nations and on the otherhand your saying we should not give them jobs. People with money create jobs, poor people and government don't.

Somewhere along the line there must be a happy middleground, both the all or nothing approaches are wrong. The focus needs to be on reducing pollutants, not trying to effect climate change. Therefore first off the monies need to stay in the industrialized nations first to solve our issues, not redistributed to poor nations to advance their technology as the U.N. desires.

Let's first do an unbiased study to see if there really is global warming, right now for every study you can show that there is global warming I can find another that disputes each of those points. Just read some of those articles on the web page I posted.
If there is global warming let's find the true cause of it. If its caused by higher solar activity, not much we can do and we will just have to learn to adapt. If it is caused by man, then and ony then an we take steps to rectify the situation.

You state:

The thing that scares me the most about climate change is that it will effect poor people on the coastal areas. The underdeveloped countries have no means of infrastructure to deal with the large scale flooding that is to come. It is scary because we are talking about death tolls that have never been seen before. I know this sounds like a scare tactic but I am with the majority of the scientific community. Global warming is a fact and a serious threat.

yes, that is very much a scare tactic and no you are not with the majority of the scientific community.

You also state:
Dumping toxic chemicals into nature is like shatting in our own backyard..
Yes, that is wong by everyone standards but it has nothing to do with Global Warming

Ok just wrote a long post and then accidentally killed the post so this might be rushed but whatevs.

Sandi: BTW I will reread your other post in depth and respond when I have time. Sorry, for my bad debate conduct.

I just read the part about warmest years before 1940. Hmmm I don't think this is correct. I believe that 11 out of the last 13 years have been the warmest on record. BOTH of us need to check statistics as I heard it on NPR.

I was trying to be diplomatic about climate change. I know there was a major conference just this year in which most of the top scientists in the world and came to the conclusion that climate change is man made. I don't know the name of the conference off the top of my head but I will find it don't worry. Not going to make speculations but read into the number of scientific papers. Its incredibly high for this being a hoax or misread. The rate of change is incredibly fast when compared to data from the last few thousand years. And again I will find the citation for this but not time right now.

What I was really trying to get at with the dumping idea, Sandi, is that we are destroying our ecosystem. One way or the other if we do not stop, it will be destroyed. As in there will be no means for humanity to survive. This happens to most natural populations when they use all of their resources. Say for instance a predator eating all its prey. Yes the world is full of resources but at the rate of our population growth and the rate of our unchecked pollution, it will not.

Marsha:

I understand that argument that corporations create jobs etc. I know that but what I am debating here is profit margin. I do not understand why people do not get outraged about CEOs laying off workers because their profit margin went from 3 billion to 2 billion. I am talking about profit margin here not total income. This is pure and simple greed in my eyes.

And I am against carbon footprints also but for different reasons. I think its just allows companies to pay off the government for the right to pollute. Marsha, I am curious, if you have a specific source that supports sending the money to third world countries. I haven't heard about that.

And in response to the rising tide. Umm I must admit that I do not have the data on this idea. You might be right so I need to look this up.

My my, I need to write a report and present it to T-Web. As I am quite adamant about this topic and doing something to improve our planet. If I don't get back to you gals with sources in a week or so send me a message and tell me that I am being a bad scientist/citizen.

Anyway, love you gals no matter how wrong you are (joking, joking... kinda lol)

Summer Sunshine

There is no consensus on Global Warming especially if you factor into the equation "Human cause Global Warming.

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)

Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.


Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.



“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]



Scientists from Around the World Dissent



This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)



Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)


The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”



A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]


The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.


Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:


Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK)


CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)


On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”



Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK)



The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)



ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)



# #



Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:


Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”



Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.



Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.





Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."



Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.



France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”



Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”



Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “



Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”



Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”



Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at University of Columbia expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.



India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”



USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”



Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."



New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”



South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”



Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”



Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”



Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”



China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”



Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”





Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”



Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”



USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”



# # #



Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )


UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.”


The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK)


A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )


With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists.



LINKS TO COMPLETE U.S. SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Complete Report: (LINK) Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK)

Hi Sandi thanks for that btw.

It was interesting had me a little breathless until I looked up who wrote the article.

Sandi please google, Marc Marano, the author of that article. Let me give you hint, he was one of the first to report on the Swiftboat debacle with John Kerry and he produced for Rush Limbaugh for 4 years. Therefore, this does not make this source very credible as it is biased towards anti-climate change.

I would rather read the transcript of the interviews with these skeptical scientists during the Senate sessions. I will look for it and if you find it first please tell me.

Anyway, it is more helpful for a scientific debate if we find some actual scientific papers. I will search for some of these also. Tell me if any of you gals find any.

Summer

Just an update. There was an article in the Guardian today the headline of which was: Burning biofuels may be worse than coal and oil, say experts. To quote, " Using biofuels made from corn, sugar cane and soy could have a greater enviromental impact than burning fossil fuels, according to expects. Although the fuels themselves emit fewer greenhouse gases, they all have higher costs in terms of biodiversity loss and destruction of farmland." The EU, however, have proposed that 10% of all fuel used in transport should come from biofuels by 2020. Confused? Though it does then go on to mention that the emerging global market in biofuels is expected to be worth billions of dollars a year. So maybe not so confused after all. A Greenpeace spokesman suggested that biofuel technology has been oversold. Greater fuel efficiency in transport should be the first thing to tackle. But then, of course, there is no money in that. We are all concerned about the enviroment we live in but this was a good cause long ago hi-jacked by interest groups from across the political spectrum; and is being used to browbeat us into meekly accepting any number of bad policies out of a sense of shame in the same way as terrorism has been used to remove our freedoms out of a sense of fear.

It's the Golden Rule, Porscha. Them that has the gold makes the rules. One reason I'm a Libertarian is that big dogs leave the biggest pile of poo on the sidewalk and are, therefore, the biggest problem.

The cost of complying to these would force a lot of places out of buisness. Putting thousands out of work. Where it has to start is when building new factories or when updating.
Where I work we have to lube the sheet metal to prevent it from splitting in the presses. We use a bio-degradable slick stuff that we mix with water. When we have to outsource parts come back coverd in oil. The oil is a lot cheaper than what we use. We're under pressure from the big 3 to reduce cost yearly by 5%. In order to make a profit you have to cut cost where you can.
So in order to stay in buisness people get fired or you go to a cheaper process.

If someone suggests the average global temperature has gone down then at least NASA disagrees with them. The average global temperature has gone up and not down even in the past 5 years and the five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006.
Even scientists who crtisize the IPCC generally seem to agree that there is global warming going on even though they don't think humans are causing it. IPCC is that horrible group that just want to steal our money. The scientific debate isn't about IF there is global warming, the debate is how much and how fast. There is even very little scientific debate on WHAT causes it.
If you don't trust the IPCC or UN then try The U.S. National Academy of Sciences who says the same thing.

There was a downward trend in temperatures between 1940 to 1970 (give or take) which led to the idea of global cooling. Already in the 1970 scientists knew that predicting global cooling based only on this data was not possible. Despite lacking evidence, global cooling was really popular in the media though.

Not long ago the ozone depletion was a hot topic were certain substances used in various products (made by humans) was believed to cause the ozone layer surrounding the earth to thin out. The Montreal protocol which restricted the use of these substances was widely adopted around the world and for the time being the ozone depletion seems to have halted significantly. This suggests that, yes, humans can cause changes to the earth.

If it were true that volcanoes have a big impact on CO2 emissions then the data from the sampling stations around the world measuring CO2 levels would be full of spikes when a volcano erupts but that doesn't see, to be the case. Volcanoes can change the climate, usually by cooling it in the short term, but they don't seem to affect the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that much. Over long periods of time, perhaps some thousands of years, then very big volcanoes erupting very often can probably emit enough CO2 to cause global warming.

Short-term economical or political interests might surely disagree that signing international protocols to reduce CO2 emissions is the right way to go.
I wonder what the ancient people of Easter Island would say about short-term thinking in retrospect when they had chopped down all the trees on the island. The following text about the Easter Island is stolen from "A Short History of Progress" by Ronald Wright:

"there was enough old lumber to haul the great stones and still keep a few canoes seaworthy for deep water". When the day came the last boat was gone, wars broke out over "ancient planks and wormeaten bits of jetsam". The people of Rapa Nui exhausted all possible resources, including eating their own dogs and all nesting birds when finally there was absolutely nothing left. All that was left were the stone giants who symbolized the devouring of a whole island. The stone giants became monuments where the islanders could keep faith and honour them in hopes of a return. By the end, there were more than a thousand moai (stone statues), which was one for every ten islanders (Wright, 2004). When the Europeans arrived in the eighteenth century, the worst was over and they only found one or two living souls per statue.

About the sea emitting CO2 I wonder if the documentary didn't say the opposite. The oceans are usually referred to as "carbon sinks" and absorbs CO2 and stores it, not emit it.
Perhaps the environmental groups make a powerful lobby but I doubt they can compete with the oil and gas companies to be honest.

I'm not saying that believing every alarmist report is the right thing to do but some of the claims in this thread are just... wrong.

Perhaps we should discuss if smoking causes cancer instead.

// Me (who just wrote an essay on climate change)