Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

You were absolutist in claiming that there was an enormous "peer reviewed consensus" when there wasn't.

I cited wiki because it gave the links including the National Science Board. One could hardly argue that it is an enormous scientific consensus if the National Science Board doesn't support it.

Now you claim your evidence of this enormous "peer reviewed" consensus was your personal visits to your local college? I think I will stick with the National Science Board vs your remembrances of your local college where you weren't even taking science classes.

A little precision please. I made no such claim. I probably should have put the the statement in quotes, but I was making the point that the bulk of scientific consensus then was wrong. They claimed peer review of their models then, even cited long lists of concurring scientists.

I'll just keep my open mind on the subject if you don't mind. I don't care to play the 'gotcha' game on this and as there isn't a single climatologist posting on this subject, I think focusing on what the scientists are saying is more productive than discrediting each other.

Parados gives a link and I blow it out of the water and HE DOES NOT RESPOND. He blithely goes on acting as if I had not destroyed his thesis and showed FROM HIS OWN LINK that the evidence is very very tentative.

When he is faced with Okie's comment about water vapor, Parados says:
quote
The science is still moving forward. It is being studied. The fact that they don't have the answers yet about cloud cover doesn't negate the present warming.

quote

Parados is not in possession of the facts. The water vapor theory is CRUCIAL in determining just how much warming is present.

NOW, THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH ALMOST ALL OF THE POSTS THUS FAR FROM THOSE WHO THINK THE WORLD IS ENDING---

IF( and I will give evidence) a. the Water vapor problem is not solved

and b. Computer Modeling continues to present
a problem with regard to getting hard data

and c. The Solar Warming is at least PART of the
warming

and d. Satellite measurements are AMBIGIOUS
about temperature in the Troposphere
and Stratosphere(IN PARADOS'S OWN
LINK


IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE WARMING TREND MEASURED BY THE IPCC MAY BE ON THE ORDER OF one half of a degree C during the last thirty years.

ONE HALF DEGREE C during the last thirty years.



NOW, given that possibility, is there anyone who is going to tell me that we did not go into a mini Ice age around 1200 AD and that we might not have come out of that mini ice age around 1970?

WHAT ALMOST ALL OF THE POSTERS FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IS

THAT

C L I M A T E C H A N G E S!!!

It does not stay frozen in place.

What changed the climate in 800AD when the Vikings farmed Iceland?

SUVS?

First, I will review Asherman's post. He is, if I interpret him correctly, of the mind that IF, IF, CO2 is affecting our climate deleteriously, we must do something to counter that.

I POSITIVELY AGREE BUT

We need not close down our Economy to do so.. BECAUSE IF the Warming is not as great as the left would claim, the TECHNOLOGICAL STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO HELP DILUTE THE P O S S I B L E AND PROBABLY M I N I S C U L E WARMING CAN BE DONE BETWEEN NOW AND THE MID CENTURY.

The left wing would like to push the panic button. They would like to make it a political problem and not a technological one.


Mr. Parados's inability to rebut my posts after he gave the article which contained a great deal to show that the theory of Global Warming is fraught with problems, shows he knows little about the subject.

Again, I will give Mr. Parados an opportunity to respond to my posts which show that the alleged evidence he so triumphantly pointed out, does in fact show the uncertainties concerning any conclusions OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

Explain the following from YOUR OWN POSTS, Mr. Parados--I assure you that if you know how to reference your own link, you will find the following quotes in them.


There has been a great deal of blah-blah-blah on this thread with almost no reference to Scientific Journals and Reports. Mr. Thomas has commented on those peer-reviewed references. MY POSTS, FOR THE MOST PART CONTAIN REFERENCES TO PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS AND REPORTS AND HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED.


Now, to Mr. Parados' references. I hope that he did not list the reference because he felt that no one could or would read it. I DID!!!


I will capitalize key words and then comment at the end of the quotation with a comment in parenthesis:
*************************************************************
Chapter 6- Page 125---from Reference by Mr. Parados


QUOTE---from CONCLUSION OF REPORT

However, most individual models considered in this report DO NOT MAKE USE OF ALL LIKELY IMPORTANT CLIMATE FORCINGS. In addition, many of the forcings ARE NOT YET WELL QUALIFIED. Models that appear to include the same forcings OFTEN DIFFER IN BOTH THE WAY THE FORCINGS ARE QUANTIFIED AND HOW THESE FORCINGS ARE APPLIED TO THE MODEL. This makes it DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE INTRINSIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MODELS FROM THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT FORCINGS...


(Report admits models don't use all imporant and likely climate forcings

Report Admits many of the forcings are not yet well qualified

Report shows that the same forcings are quantified differently in different models and how they are applied to the model)

(Mr. Parados evidently does not understand what I have alluded to in several of my previous posts--Computer Models are ONLY as good as the data and ASSUMPTIONS fed into them and as HIS OWN REFERENCE STATES, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REALLY COMPARE DIFFERENT COMPUTER MODELS TO FIND CONVERGENCE SINCE THE MODELERS--THE PEOPLE- THE SCIENTISTS--USE DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS, DIFFERENT QUANTIFICATION AND DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS).

I sincerely hope that this will not be too difficult for Mr. Parados to understand.

Now, on to the next point( I do have ten pages of notes on Mr. Parados' reference and will utilize them as necessary.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again- Quoting from Chapter 5 of Mr. Parados's reference--



quote

"This chapter has evaluted a widew range of Scientific Literature dealing with the possible causes of recent temperature changes, both on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere. It shows that MANY FACTORS IN BOTH THE NATURAL AND HUMAN RELATED CAUSES probably contributed to the change... Although computer models of the climate system are helpful, THEY TOO HAVE LIMITATIONS."

Limitations? You bet!!!!

Now here is my evidence--note the reference to peer reviewed Scientific Literature--Grassi, Hartmut 2000--"Status and improvements of coupled general circulation models" SCIENCE--288:1, 991-7

quote:


"Coupled atmosphere-ocean-land models assimilating near real-time data from the global observing system (including the ocean interior ) will allow the attribution of a large part of observed system variablity and change to natrual and/or anthropogenic causes, will be ready in about a decade"

(Since this article by an expert in computer modeling was written in 2000, that means that these advanced computers will not be ready until 2010.)

I am certain that Mr. Parados does not understand the critical importance of the water vapor problem. He obviously does not know that if the computer simulations that produce alarming levels of warming over the next century ALL ASSUME that water vapor will amplify the small bit of warming expected from an increase of co2 concentration in the air.

THAT ASSUMPTION, HOWEVER, HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ANY ACTUAL MEASUREMENT!!!

It is obvious that Mr. Parados does not have basic facts about Solar magnetism available to him. The amount of energy reaching us increases or decreases as the sun brightens or fades. And the change in solar magnetism or total energy output, is highly correlated with changs in the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere going back 240 years. The sun today is as magnetically active as it has been in 400 years of direct telescope observations.

Now, does this explain the total rise in Temperature since 1976?(somewhere between .50 and 1.00 C degrees depending on THE MODEL USED).

It does not. But it could logically explain a rise of .20 or .40 in the rise in global temperatures.

Again, the Global Warming fanatics all assume that the world is ending.

It is not. and any problems can be easily handled without destroying our economy by phasing in techological improvements during the next fifty years.

BernardR

You are arrogant and insulting. And there is no need to shout.

I am reposting a quote I put into this discussion several pages back.

sumac, Are you familiar with massagatto? One and the same.

Having fun playing with yourself Bernard?

It is amazing the way you can make believe things that have never happened and forget things that have.

Have a nice day. :wink:

It is amazing how some people think surface temperature readings are models. I always thought recorded data from a thermometer was recorded data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Some people don't seem to be aware that the sun has an 11 year cycle and it was at its peak in 2001. Nor are they aware that we are presently at the low point of the cycle. Data here shows that the present magnetic flux earth is recieving from the sun is 1/3 of what it was at its peak in Dec of 2001.
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/old_reports/2006/june/20060701.html

That would mean the sun is NOT as magnetically active today as it has been in the last 400 years. It is 1/3 of what it was only 5 years ago.

Yet when compared to the 2006 surface temperature readings we are higher now then in 2001.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Temperatures in the Norther Hemisphere are higher than 5 years ago. Sun flux 1/3 of what it was 5 years ago. Yet some people want to make idiotic statements about how the sun is just as active today and is causing the present increase from 5 years ago. Perhaps some people shouldn't flaunt their ignorance quite as much as they do.

Perhaps those people should realize that the present year is not 2000. Quoting articles from 2000 that have since proven to be invalid by subsequent scientific research doesn't make their case. But then perhaps those people are so stuck in the past they can't see the present. Or perhaps they can't see because their head is stuck somewhere else.

Parados, I am glad that you are taking a look at the the solar factor. I am not impressed with your attempt to correlate today's temperatures with solar sunspot activity today. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees, sheesh Parados. It should be obvious that the effects from solar cycles may manifest themselves as sort of an averaged out effect over a number of years. Take a step back here. There are many very poorly understood factors coming into play here.

In the following link, this quote, which is talking about the correlation of the solar cycle with observed rise in earth temperature since about 1930:

"The red curve illustrates the solar activity, which is generally
increasing through an interval of 100 years, since the cycle length
has decreased from around 11.5 years to less than 10 years. Within
the same interval the Earth's average temperature as indicated by
the blue curve has increased by approximately 0.7 degree C. "

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Parados, take a look at the many graphs, read the explanations. It appears to me that the intensity of solar cycles and the length of solar cycles definitely track climatic variations on earth. Take a look at the graph showing since about 1700 to now, and it appears the intensity of the peaks are higher since about 1960 leading into now.

I happen to think there is likely AND OBVIOUSLY a link between our climate and the sun. The evidence is fairly convincing to me. Exactly how it manifests itself, in terms of correlation to sunspot intensity and length of cycle, I don't know, but at least this theory makes more sense than CO2 and the many convoluted calculations associated with the greenhouse effect. Add to this the fact that "PEER REVIEWED" scientists apparently believe there is evidence of warming on Mars, and maybe other planets. Parados, do they have SUVs on Mars?

"Peer reviewed," I love it Parados, if you review my post, I can now be "peer reviewed." Unless I guess you might consider yourself above my level, then you would not consider yourself a peer?

And Asherman, unfortunately this thread belongs in the political section because the politicians have made it a political issue in an effort to use it to further their agenda. I wish it could belong in the scientific section.

Thank You, Okie. I was ready to show Mr. Parados how ignorant he was about the sun but you did it for me. Now, I will give him another opportunity to rebut my posts. He evidently either missed my arguments or cannot answer them. I do request that he answer all my rebuttals. Those he does not answer--stand!!!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parados gives a link and I blow it out of the water and HE DOES NOT RESPOND. He blithely goes on acting as if I had not destroyed his thesis and showed FROM HIS OWN LINK that the evidence is very very tentative.

When he is faced with Okie's comment about water vapor, Parados says:
quote
The science is still moving forward. It is being studied. The fact that they don't have the answers yet about cloud cover doesn't negate the present warming.

quote

Parados is not in possession of the facts. The water vapor theory is CRUCIAL in determining just how much warming is present.

NOW, THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH ALMOST ALL OF THE POSTS THUS FAR FROM THOSE WHO THINK THE WORLD IS ENDING---

IF( and I will give evidence) a. the Water vapor problem is not solved

and b. Computer Modeling continues to present
a problem with regard to getting hard data

and c. The Solar Warming is at least PART of the
warming

and d. Satellite measurements are AMBIGIOUS
about temperature in the Troposphere
and Stratosphere(IN PARADOS'S OWN
LINK


IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE WARMING TREND MEASURED BY THE IPCC MAY BE ON THE ORDER OF one half of a degree C during the last thirty years.

ONE HALF DEGREE C during the last thirty years.



NOW, given that possibility, is there anyone who is going to tell me that we did not go into a mini Ice age around 1200 AD and that we might not have come out of that mini ice age around 1970?

WHAT ALMOST ALL OF THE POSTERS FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IS

THAT

C L I M A T E C H A N G E S!!!

It does not stay frozen in place.

What changed the climate in 800AD when the Vikings farmed Iceland?

SUVS?

First, I will review Asherman's post. He is, if I interpret him correctly, of the mind that IF, IF, CO2 is affecting our climate deleteriously, we must do something to counter that.

I POSITIVELY AGREE BUT

We need not close down our Economy to do so.. BECAUSE IF the Warming is not as great as the left would claim, the TECHNOLOGICAL STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO HELP DILUTE THE P O S S I B L E AND PROBABLY M I N I S C U L E WARMING CAN BE DONE BETWEEN NOW AND THE MID CENTURY.

The left wing would like to push the panic button. They would like to make it a political problem and not a technological one.


Mr. Parados's inability to rebut my posts after he gave the article which contained a great deal to show that the theory of Global Warming is fraught with problems, shows he knows little about the subject.



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



There has been a great deal of blah-blah-blah on this thread with almost no reference to Scientific Journals and Reports. Mr. Thomas has commented on those peer-reviewed references. MY POSTS, FOR THE MOST PART CONTAIN REFERENCES TO PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS AND REPORTS AND HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED.


Now, to Mr. Parados' references. I hope that he did not list the reference because he felt that no one could or would read it. I DID!!!


I will capitalize key words and then comment at the end of the quotation with a comment in parenthesis:
*************************************************************
Chapter 6- Page 125---from Reference by Mr. Parados


QUOTE---from CONCLUSION OF REPORT

However, most individual models considered in this report DO NOT MAKE USE OF ALL LIKELY IMPORTANT CLIMATE FORCINGS. In addition, many of the forcings ARE NOT YET WELL QUALIFIED. Models that appear to include the same forcings OFTEN DIFFER IN BOTH THE WAY THE FORCINGS ARE QUANTIFIED AND HOW THESE FORCINGS ARE APPLIED TO THE MODEL. This makes it DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE INTRINSIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MODELS FROM THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT FORCINGS...


(Report admits models don't use all imporant and likely climate forcings

Report Admits many of the forcings are not yet well qualified

Report shows that the same forcings are quantified differently in different models and how they are applied to the model)

(Mr. Parados evidently does not understand what I have alluded to in several of my previous posts--Computer Models are ONLY as good as the data and ASSUMPTIONS fed into them and as HIS OWN REFERENCE STATES, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REALLY COMPARE DIFFERENT COMPUTER MODELS TO FIND CONVERGENCE SINCE THE MODELERS--THE PEOPLE- THE SCIENTISTS--USE DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS, DIFFERENT QUANTIFICATION AND DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS).

I sincerely hope that this will not be too difficult for Mr. Parados to understand.

Now, on to the next point( I do have ten pages of notes on Mr. Parados' reference and will utilize them as necessary.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again- Quoting from Chapter 5 of Mr. Parados's reference--



quote

"This chapter has evaluted a widew range of Scientific Literature dealing with the possible causes of recent temperature changes, both on the earth's surface and in the atmosphere. It shows that MANY FACTORS IN BOTH THE NATURAL AND HUMAN RELATED CAUSES probably contributed to the change... Although computer models of the climate system are helpful, THEY TOO HAVE LIMITATIONS."

Limitations? You bet!!!!

Now here is my evidence--note the reference to peer reviewed Scientific Literature--Grassi, Hartmut 2000--"Status and improvements of coupled general circulation models" SCIENCE--288:1, 991-7

quote:


"Coupled atmosphere-ocean-land models assimilating near real-time data from the global observing system (including the ocean interior ) will allow the attribution of a large part of observed system variablity and change to natrual and/or anthropogenic causes, will be ready in about a decade"

(Since this article by an expert in computer modeling was written in 2000, that means that these advanced computers will not be ready until 2010.)


-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am certain that Mr. Parados does not understand the critical importance of the water vapor problem. He obviously does not know that if the computer simulations that produce alarming levels of warming over the next century ALL ASSUME that water vapor will amplify the small bit of warming expected from an increase of co2 concentration in the air.

THAT ASSUMPTION, HOWEVER, HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ANY ACTUAL MEASUREMENT!!!






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is obvious that Mr. Parados does not have basic facts about Solar magnetism available to him. The amount of energy reaching us increases or decreases as the sun brightens or fades. And the change in solar magnetism or total energy output, is highly correlated with changs in the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere going back 240 years. The sun today is as magnetically active as it has been in 400 years of direct telescope observations.

Now, does this explain the total rise in Temperature since 1976?(somewhere between .50 and 1.00 C degrees depending on THE MODEL USED).

It does not. But it could logically explain a rise of .20 or .40 in the rise in global temperatures.

Again, the Global Warming fanatics all assume that the world is ending.

It is not. and any problems can be easily handled without destroying our economy by phasing in techological improvements during the next fifty years.

Okie- Here is another item for Mr. Parados to look at-If he can understand its full meaning:

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


Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so on.





Example of regional variations in surface air temperature for the last 1000 years, estimated from a variety of sources, including temperature-sensitive tree growth indices and written records of various kinds, largely from western Europe and eastern North America. Shown are changes in regional temperature in ° C, from the baseline value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record




Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed the "Little Ice Age." This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing seasons, and a drier climate. The decline in global temperatures was a modest 1/2° C, but the effects of this global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes. The Little Ice Age has been blamed for a host of human suffering including crop failures like the "Irish Potato Famine" and the demise of the medieval Viking colonies in Greenland.

Today we enjoy global temperatures which have warmed back to levels of the so called "Medieval Warm Period," which existed from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350.



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


"...the Earth was evidently coming out of a relatively cold period in the 1800's so that warming in the past century may be part of this natural recovery."


Dr. John R. Christy
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- U. of Alabama in Huntsville) (5)



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

The post below shows exactly why Mr.Parados' amazing ignorance about how the science of Global Warming is handled allows him to make ridiculous statements like:

*************************************************************
It is amazing how some people think surface temperature readings are models. I always thought recorded data from a thermometer was recorded data.
***********************************************************

I do hope you will read this carefully, Mr. Parados. You may learn something.

Surface temperature readings are by definition readings that HAVE TAKEN PLACE.

Mr. Parados is not able to understand that the "end of the world" as described by the sky is falling types is based on MODELS--COMPUTER MODELS.

THEY PREDICT THE FUTURE TEMPERATURES.

THESE MODELS ARE FED THE TEMPERATURES WHICH HAVE BEEN RECORDED( many of which are very questionable) AND THE FUTURE IS PREDICTED.

NOTE-

quote---

"IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT ALL OF THE IPCC'S PREDICTIONS ARE BASED ON COMPUTER MODEL SIMULATIONS....IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE RESULT OF SIMULATIONS DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE PARAMETERS AND ALGORITIMS WITH WHICH THE COMPUTER IS FED. C O M P U T E R S A R E N U M B E R C R U N C H E R S A N D N O T C R Y S T A L B A L L S>"


Source for above--"The Skeptical Environmentalist"--Bjorn Lomberg-P. 265.

The sun's influence on the earth?
quote
Today, about 65% of the Earth is covered with clouds.

Source--Rossow and Schiffer--"Advances in understanding clouds from ISCCP" Bulletin of the American Meterological Society 80( 11).2.261-87.

quote

This is extremely significant when determining the warming effect of CO2 because the clouds help to keep the earth cool by reflecting the sun's rays, while at the same time warming it be keeping in the heat. THE OVERALL EFFECT FOR LOW LEVEL CLOUDS IS A COOLING OF THE EARTH SO THAT MORE LOW LEVEL CLOUDS MEAN LOWER TEMPERATURES, HOWEVER, THERE IS NOW A SHORTER SUNSPOT CYCLE D U R A T I O N. THIS MEANS MORE INTENSE SOLAR ACTIVITY, LESS COSMIC RADIATION, FEWER LOW-LEVEL CLOUDS, AND THEREFORE HIGHER TEMPERATURES. THIS THEORY ALSO HAS THE TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE, COMPARED TO THE GREEN HOUSE THEORY, THAT IT CAN EXPLAIN THE TEMPERATURE CHANGES FROM 1860 TO 1950 WHICH THE REST OF THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WITH A SHRUG OF THE SHOULDERS ACCREDITED TO NATURAL VARIATION"


END OF QUOTE

Source--Svensmark, Henrik and Egil Friis Christensen
"Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage--a missing link in solar-climate relationships" Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Territorial Physics 59 (11):1,225-32

Some people can't seem to make coherent and consistent arguments.

They say things like


When in reality it is near its lowest. The present year is the low point of a cycle and the last peak in the cycle was lower than the previous 2.

Then they make comments like
Then they defend it by claiming they were talking about computer modeling of future increases. In reality their comment says no such thing. No sane person would think it was talking about the future.

Of course some people have their heads so far up where the sun never shines so they wouldn't know anything about sun cycles or temperature data.

Then they continue to trot out "evidence" from pre 2000 failing to see that the present year is 2006. And also failing to see the the charting from 1980 on shows a rapid increase in temperature that can't be related to the solar energy.

Perhaps you check for updates before you post something based on 1994 data..
This from their 2001 follow up using 1998 data.

http://www.dsri.dk/~ndm/CLOUD_UPDATE/UPDATE.html

Bernard, Okie, Prados,

The three of you have dominated the pages on this thread for at least a week. All of you have posted cut and paste articles, many of them lengthy. The articles, it seems to me, are on point though all betray some some biases supporting or opposing the proposition that human activity is a contributing variable to observed results, or whether the observed results are "normal" and of no consequence. All three of you have demonstrated a willingness to become better informed about the subject. You have surveyed the data available and drawn your own conclusions from it. All of this is praise worthy.

Let me ask the three of you, has calling one another ignorant, stupid, crazy, etc., etc., etc. helped or hindered the process of keeping an open and objective mind as you've reviewed the material? Has the name calling convinced others that they are wrong, or has it caused them to become less willing to "see" whatever point you wish to make? Working together you have a much better chance of gaining a realistic understanding of the subject. Isn't that your purpose? Or is the purpose to demonstrate that your point of view is superior to the opposition? One purpose is laudable, the other laughable. You three should have some respect for each others findings, and in cooperation try to reconcile the data that seems contradictory. Arguing over whose sources are superior doesn't do anything useful for anyone, because nothing will ever be proved by it.

Data taken from the extremes is often not representative of the central tendency of the whole set. This is a topic that has be politicized, and that too distorts and hardens opinions amongst the non-specialist population at large. The bottom line is that it is virtually certain that a there has been a 1 degree rise in mean global temperature over the past century. That may not be absolutely nailed down, but its foolish to bet on a field of donkeys when there is a real race horse in the contest. No one can be certain what the 1 degree portends, or how persistent the trend might be.

This rise in temperature coincides with a period in history where human impact on the environment has been greater than in all the rest of history. It might be co-incidental, but probably the human variable is a significant variable in the whole equation. Ultimately, whether human activity "caused" the observed results, contributed to it, or had zero effect isn't important beyond being a cautionary lesson. What is important is for us as a species to understand that our ability to exempt ourselves from the effects of nature are limited. If this trend continues and persists for even another fifty years, there may well be catastrophic impacts on many human communities. Those impacts can be mitigated to some extent by bringing abundant and cheaper "clean" power sources on line. There may be other means of mitigating the impact of a changing climate, but only if we think ahead and seriously consider what problems we may face.

Asherman, points well taken. In defense of my mode of speech and behavior, I confess to some sarcasm, as in the jab to Parados about being peer reviewed. I always thought a little humor can help a debate. I would confess that I could probably improve. I don't recall calling anyone stupid or crazy. I may have alluded to ignorance, or may have labeled an idea stupid. I stand by those terms as being valid and pertinent.

Actually, from my experience on this and other threads, I have respect for Parados as being decent in bringing some evidence to support his conclusions. I just disagree, and we both throw a bit of sarcasm back and forth, but I do not think it borders anything close to the bitter hatred observed sometimes by others. As for Bernard, who else on this forum has submitted as much evidence and information to absorb? I think he is doing a great job, Asherman. Yes a bit of sarcasm, but as long as its mixed with some back up arguments, I think we can take it in good humor. And his arguments are abundant and founded in alot of well thought out arguments. I doubt that many, or even any, others have taken the time to read his posts carefully and look at the links and go through the debate point by point. His points are valid and they deserve careful consideration.

And Asherman, thanks for bringing a balanced, reasoned point of view without the name calling.

I think it would help if all would admit the obvious here in this debate:
1 - Science does not know the extent of global warming and what is causing it. It is all theory, and as Bernard keeps pounding on, much of it is tied to computer modeling with projections of made up equations and data.
2. - This issue is now a political football, and much of the evidence is being obscured by politicians and by some so-called scientists with a political agenda behind their conclusions.
3. - Because of Point #2, politicians are calling for all of us to jump on a political bandwagon to take action on something, that not all of us agree with.

As for me, I am simply trying to cut through this fog and evaluate the data based on common sense and unbiased thinking. When the crowd tries to push me down a road of thought for what I think are not good reasons, I say, whoa, we have more work to do here before we do something that may be unnecessary and have negative consequences.