On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:40:20 -0600, "Ryan P."
wrote:

wrote:

Who determines what the "perfect" global climate is? 10,000 years
ago, before cities and electricity, we were in an ice age. Was that the
perfect natural climate? 60,000,000 years ago most of the land mass was
tropical or sub-tropical in temperature. Was that perfect?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The above shows exactly what some of us are concerned about. You
can't even raise any question about global warming without being
attacked as some kind of neanderthal and called an ahole. The same
thing is happening in academic circles. Many scientists have a
choice to make. Raise legitimate questions about global warming and
be ridiculed, outcast, have your funding cut off, denied tenure, or
stay silent so others can claim there is no disagreement.
.
.
And yet liberals say that conservatives are the ones that don't allow
dissenting opintions....
.
.


To your issue about Mars also seeing a rise in temp, I would add
this. According to current evidence, there have been 4 major cycles
of global warming and cooling going back about 700K years. This is
the common graph used to link CO2 with global warming. It's used by
Al Gore in his movie. It shows CO2 and the earth's temp rising and
falling together. However, it also shows that in every cycle, the
temp starts to rise a few hunderd to 1500 years BEFORE CO2 starts to
rise. I've yet to hear anyone explain that. Typical response I've
seen was from an alleged expert at a major university, who stated that
this only shows CO2 isn't responsible for the early part of the rise.
Huh? I would submit that if that answer were given to a question in
high school science, it wouldn't pass.


I don't remember for sure, but isn't that one of the "factual errors"
that the British judge cited when he ordered that Al Gore's movie can be
played in British classrooms, but it must be accompanied by a list of
things that it gets blatently wrong?


On the other hand, I've listened to an Ocean Sciences professor at MIT
who believes cycles in the output of the Sun is responsible for
increased warming of the Earth. The oceans are a major reservoir of
CO2 and as they get heated, just like a warming open bottle of soda,
they release CO2. And because the oceans are so deep, it takes
hundreds of years after the warming starts for the CO2 to increase.
Sounds pretty reasonable and it explains the graph, but like others,
this guy is dismissed as an ahole heretic by the true believers.
.
.
In 20 years when we go into another cooling trend, the wackos will
forget all about global warming and become worried about all the
wildlife that is displaced as they have to migrate south.


Before we get into a big debate (which has been done many times by
folks far more knowledgeable on these issues than us) I need to know
where we are starting from.

Do you believe in evolution? Lots of folks don't, so global warming
can't be a problem because the world is just the way God wanted it and
isn't old enough to have climate shifts. I see a leading Republican
contender doesn't believe in evolution. That should scare the shit out
of you. "If you want to believe that you and your family came from
apes, that's fine. I'll accept that," he said Friday. "I just don't
happen to think that I did."

Assuming we agree that evolution happens, are you denying that the
earth is getting warmer? Apparently some reputable scientists believe
we don't have enough information and that the evidence that we do have
is being interpreted incorrectly.

If we agree that the earth is getting warmer, is man at least partly
responsible? Some scientists seem to thing that humanity is too
inconsequential to be causing climate shifts. I look at all the stuff
we're dumping into the air, sea, and ground, and think that not only
are we altering the weather, we're causing lots of other damage -
species extinction, new types of organisms, and such.

Many scientists who disagree that man is responsible for all of global
warming agree that we're having some impact.

Do you believe that the global warming debate is a conspiracy to
funnel research funds into the pockets of evil scientists? If so, you
might also consider that well funded corporate interests might be
paying the bill for some of the scientists that oppose the global
warming idea.

Finally, do you think that global warming, if it is even occuring,
might be a good thing? I sort of lean that way a bit. I think that
it's too cold where I live (NYC). I love it here, but surfing is
limited by the fact that the ocean is now 43F. That doesn't stop the
really dedicated surfers I might point out. My main beach
(http://www.surfline.com/reports/report.cfm?id=4270) often has people
surfing in the winter. That's why God invented wet suits after all.

I admit to enjoying asking right-wingers if they think the opposition
is a conspiracy. I'm a firm believer in conspiracies myself.