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

I also agree that man should make every attempt to minimize co2; it's better for our health.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
344
Meteorologist Dr. Fred Ward, who earned his PhD in Meteorology from MIT and is a former meteorologist for Boston TV, ridiculed what he termed "global warming zealots." "Good, worldwide temperature data are available for less than a century, but that hasn't stopped the alarmists from quoting what are called ‘temperature' data extending back to the Romans. Such data are not temperatures, but proxies which are claimed to measure temperature," Ward wrote in the New Hampshire Union Leader on July 16, 2007. "Such proxies include tree rings, ice cores and the like, but they all suffer from one serious limitation. The proxies can be calculated from the weather, but the weather cannot be calculated from the proxies. The brief reason is that many different weather elements work in complex ways to produce the proxy," he added. "Finally, for those of you old enough to read in the 1970s, there was a lot of hysteria back then about the global temperature. The same ‘if we don't act promptly, in 10 years it will be too late' statements were published, on the covers of reputable papers and magazines, by many of the same ‘scientists,' and for many of the same base motives. The only difference between the 1970s and now was that the disaster that was just around the corner was global cooling! How times change, while people don't," he concluded. (LINK)

Based on publications in the refereed literature, only approximately
10% of the 687 individuals could be indentified definitively
as climate scientists. Only approximately 15% could be identified
as publishing in fields related to climate science.
Examples include solar physicists studying solar irradiance variation.
For approximately 80% of these individuals, no evidence
could be found that they had published research remotely
related to climate science. Examples include purported
meteorologists - the largest professional field found " who have no
refereed scientific publications and whose job is merely to report
the weather forecast.
Almost 4% have made statements suggesting they largely
accept the scientific community’s consensus view that global
warming is occurring and that greenhouse gases appear to be
a significant cause. (This is a tentative approximation, because
these same individuals may have made other statements elsewhere.
This nonetheless raises the question whether they should have been
included on the Senate Minority Report’s list in the first place.)

Any discussion of global warming which focuses on whether or not warming is happening, is misplaced because warming is already known and expected. The only question of any relevance is whether the human contribution to the warming will have any impact on the natural cycle which is already firmly established, and what that impact will be. And given that nobody in the political or scientific arena is even asking the right questions at the moment, it's unlikely that we're going to get any meaningful answers any time soon.

I think mankind should minimize it's polluting activities just because it's a better way to live in your environment. Whether our descendants live on a hot planet or a cold one it's better not to have to walk around in (or breathe) your own waste products. But I don't think we should expect that anything we do is going to have much effect on planetary climate any time soon. The forces driving the underlying climate are obviously titanic or the spikes on the ice core graph wouldn't be so sharp and regular.

Today, responding to a court-ordered deadline, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized long-overdue reports documenting the status of polar bears and Pacific walrus in Alaska. The reports confirm that polar bear populations in Alaska are declining and that Pacific walrus are under threat. Both species are being hurt by the loss of their sea-ice habitat due to global warming, oil and gas development, and unsustainable harvest.

Your discussion with patiodog is the first time, in a while, that I've found this thread interesting. We probably have touched on or explored this aspect of the issue before, but with over 750 pages of postings, I'm not about to determine if that is actually so. In any case, I think it is important to note that humanity is not unnatural which is to say that while humans may have a greater ability, than most species, to impact ecological balance, we are, at the same time, part of and subject to that balance. Whether or not humanity has a "right" to spread and advance technologically will depend upon what concept or system of law you wish to apply in connection with the question.

You bring up the most important point about humanity and pollution. One need only look at China, and understand how they are destroying their own environment that impacts the health of their citizens. One-third of all their rivers are now polluted, and many villages must have fresh water trucked in for their survival. That's happening today.

that there are more polar bears now than when scientists first started counting: Estimates put the population between 20,000 and 25,000, up from several thousand 50 years ago. In Canada, where two-thirds of the world's bears live, most populations have grown during the past two or three decades. Arctic residents say they are now bumping into bears wherever they turn....."A month ago I was down by my [hunting] camp and I saw five polar bears," says Harry Flaherty, chairman of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, who lives in Iqaluit. "They were so fat, they could barely move."

Interesting, but other sources seem more reliable: