Jeff,

I appreciate your approach to this (and most of your post topics) - far better than the sometimes over-the-top partisan approach of many of your BO colleagues.

I would suggest a third option that you have missed:

1. Global cooling will be a very serious problem, producing a range of effects from merely the very painful, costly, and marginally lethal to the catastrophically deadly and destructive.

By adding this option, you will have allowed us to prepare for a full range of possibilities.

For the record, I am convinced that there is every possibility that, like the huge majority of scientists who believed the earth was flat, that peer pressure and closed academic minds have as much to do with acceptance of the theory of "global warming" as any other factors.

Thanks for the post Jeff! What's exciting is that Oregon has the opportunity to act now to curb Global Warming. Right now the Oregon State Legislature is debating Governor Kulongoski's package of climate bills. These bills range in scope from renewable energy procurement to a sector by sector plan to reduce global warming pollution(Senate Bill 80). As the Eugene Register Guard said, "State lawmakers should keep moving forward and resist the temptation to retreat".

I think that if folks want to make a difference this Earth, they should call their state legislators and ask them to act now to curb global warming by supporting the Governor's climate change package.

Humans are not very good at assessing and responding to long-term dangers. Our brains aren't wired for it.

Exactly. That's why we're going to soon be like every other hominids, i.e. extinct after a comparatively very short time.

In a sense the far right has it correct about the role of environmentalists being negative. They have taken the moral high ground and tried to cure the disease rather than the symptoms, fostering a sustainable attitude toward life in general. That's nice, but we're not going to destroy the planet. It will recover. We are killing ourselves, without any hope of redemption.

If we had said, "you're all going to die", day 1, instead of, "you are being rude to your mother planet, your tiny little envelope of gas that you live on", we would have gotten less resistance. Fine with me. Proves the species doesn't deserve to survive.

All that aside, "human behavior" is not a monolithic entity. There is human behavior, then you reach a certain population density and it changes. Native populations are not more enlightened about sustainability natively. They haven't reached the density/attitude tipping point. That's the respect they have for the environment. Keep population in check and all will follow. The converse applies as well, and is our situation. This is the natural order of things. The attitude is a fail safe to kill us off when population density gets too high. That "lack of vision" is getting more pronounced each generation. Not a coincidence, it's a safety valve. When there's too many lemmings, it's natural- and very good for the environment- for them to run off a cliff.

Personally, I intend to enjoy the view on the way down. Sartre would have said that hell is other people; there is no exit.

It will be interesting to see how those in politics for the greater good react to parties' putting self interest and party business ahead of results, as they are and no doubt will continue to do. Sounds to me like one loyal Dem has drawn a line in the sand. Good on 'ya.

Instead of calling it Global Warming or Climate Change, why don't we call it what it is: Global Polluting.

If we wouldn't tolerate a computer that runs on DOS 3.1 a mere 15 years ago, why as consumers do we accept an automobile that still runs on fossil fuel after nearly a century? As far as I can tell, the only technological advancement made to cars in the last 10 years is a DVD player in the back seat and 16 super-sized cup holders.

Give consumers a choice, reduce CO2 and pollution in general over the next 20 years, and then let the GW deniers and acceptors battle it out on the blogs.

Oh, and stop producing reality TV shows glorifying families with 18 offspring.

Whether it's option 1, 2, or now 3 (thanks to Tom), in any case, Mother Earth will come out of it just fine, thank you. We the people may be toast (or ice cubes). The sooner we recognize that it's not the earth we're trying to save, but ourselves, the more rational the discussion will become.

Found the following from 2007 at National Geographic:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Source

Any thoughts, or is NG "on the take" from Big Oil as well.

How much we humans contribute to Global Warming is a question that may never be answered to anyone’s satisfaction, but here are a few comments that may help mitigate the problem.

1. Using concrete instead of asphalt for roads and other surfaces will reflect the sun’s rays instead of absorbing them and result in a reduction of the air temperature of the surrounding area.

2. The same applies to roofs. White roofs reflect the sun’s rays and reduce the temperature of the surrounding area.

"Globally, roofs account for 25% of the surface of most cities, and pavement accounts for about 35%. If all were switched to reflective material in 100 major urban areas, it would offset 44 metric gigatons of greenhouse gases, which have been trapping heat in the atmosphere and altering the climate on a potentially dangerous scale." http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/10/local/me-roofs10

Libertarians don’t want to mandate that you, or anyone else paint their roof white, but we do think that since the government is building roads and putting up buildings of all kinds then they should follow these simple suggestions. Maybe you can help by doing this on your own.

1. Open the transit market to competition. Some of the most polluting vehicles are those owned by low income people who do not have access to other transportation services because in most American cities the government has made it virtually impossible to own and operate a private transportation business. By opening the transportation business to other types of providers low income people will then have access to alternatives that may reduce the number older polluting cars on the roads. One source estimates that wide spread use of jitneys for urban transit could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50%, or more.

2. Advancements in technology of LED, light emitting diodes, may significantly change the way we light our homes and workplaces. Some estimate that the saving in electricity will be in the hundreds of terawatts. Building codes that make adoption of new technologies need to be repealed.

"If all of the world's light bulbs were replaced with LEDs for a period of 10 years, Schubert and Kim estimate the following benefits would be realized: • Energy savings of 1.9 × 1020 joules • Electrical energy consumption would be reduced by terawatt hours • Financial savings of $1.83 trillion • Carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 10.68 gigatons • Crude oil consumption would be reduced by 962 million barrels • The number of required global power plants would be reduced by 280 " http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217074908.htm

1. The U.S. military and its world wide deployment to some 700, or more bases in 130 countries worldwide use a huge amount of petroleum products that can be reduced significantly. Thus reducing pollution and saving considerable amounts.

http://www.govexec.com/features/0607-01/0607-01s3.htm

It's impossible to overstate the challenge facing Defense. It is the single-largest consumer of petroleum in the world. Oil fuels the world economy; specifically, it fuels every weapons system operated by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.

1. Agricultural subsidies have shifted food production from areas near our cities to cross country sites that require long distance trucking and are subject to other numerous problems from food borne diseases rapid spread of agricultural pest and disease.

Just a few points to help the debate along. And a few ideas for change that don't cost much of anything.

Ok, so lets all buy American made hybrid plug in cars and move on shall we?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a certainty for me, but for the sake of the thread I will accept the hypothesis. So, if factual, what do we do?

Just changing out the lightbulbs doesn't do enough and our infrastructure demands more and more energy of some form.

Since we are only interested in science, not superstition and fear-mongering, then the only reasonable solution is build more nuclear power plants post-haste. This is the only form of electricity generation that can produce the amount of energy that the world will need.

It is not realistic to believe that China or India will reduce any of their carbon output in response to a long-term threat. They just recently have have stopped poisoning their populations with much faster-acting toxic chemicals.

So we have to replace coal-burning electricity with safe, passive-nuclear plants now and work on other solutions for the future. Ignoring nuclear out of ignorance and fear means deciding between climate change and survival of our nation's economy vs. the Chinese. If the choice is between survival now and what may happen in the future, survival wins every time.

I'm really concerned. Thom Hartman said today on the air that if we don't act fast the earth will become uninhabitable for humans. Now that we have OSU's Jane Lubchenco as the head of NOAA we may soon be on the right path. She's not only discovered that ocean dead zones are caused by global warming but she has recently revealed that the current climate models can predict where wind will be 100 years from now. That's good to know.

"Dr. Lubchenco said, one of her goals at NOAA is to establish a climate information service modeled on the National Weather Service, which is part of the agency. The weather service provides “just a phenomenal service” in making information available in ways ordinary people can understand it and act on it, she said. Dr. Lubchenco believes climate models are now sufficiently “robust” to help scientists start to do the same with climate, to help businesses, elected officials and regulators make good decisions on issues like where to put buildings or roads or wind farms.

“It is no longer enough to know what the wind patterns were for the last hundred years,” she said. “You want to know what they will be for the next hundred years — and they undoubtedly won’t be the same. So there are huge opportunities to provide services to the country.”

Absolutely amazing. A new National Climate Service will soon be telling us where to put roads, buildings and wind farms.

Jeff, thanks for banning the trolls from this topic.

Not really a hard choice here. Simply do a lot of things that make sense independent of climate change issues.

• Plant forests, and lots of trees in cities and suburbs
• Build lots of wind turbines
• Improve the capacity and reliability of our national electrical grid to distribute energy
• Continue an all-fronts push in energy efficiency and conservation
• Massive R&D efforts in solar power, as well as wave, tide, and geothermal
• Dramatic investments in electric transportation
• Tax policies that provide incentives to all of the above

This is all stuff we SHOULD be doing anyway, regardless of whether we're concerned about climate change. Climate change simple adds a level of urgency; a reason to do it NOW instead of next decade.

The one thing I think progressive should rally behind is a new generation of nuclear power plants. I am NOT a fan of nuclear power; we still don't have adequate ways to address waste disposal. HOWEVER, it's probably easier to solve that problem later than watch as the planet's climate changes beyond the ability of our civilization to rapidly adapt.

So for those who accept the reality of global warming, accept nuclear plants as part of the solution as a TEMPORARY measure. Actually, we could even set a limit. Total the megawatts produced by every coal, oil, and natural gas power plant in the country. Increase it twenty percent. Allow that many megawatts of new nuclear construction, as long as each new plant shuts down a fossil fuel plant or two.

(I go on the assumption that we can run electric cars off the existing grid, as long as we charge them at night. Peak-hour pricing on electricity consumption should help encourage that.)

Once that capacity is in place and all the fossil fuel plants are gone, ban any more nuclear plants. Require all new generation be in wind, solar, geothermal, tide, wave, cogeneration, or some other reasonably benign, waste-free technology. After a few decades, decommission the nuclear plants as they reach the end of their useful life and replace them with something truly clean.

Global warming aside, as a nation we have nothing to lose by rapidly reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. The short term economic gain caused by present use and extraction rates of oil and natural gas are not sustainable. If world and individual nation’s economies rely on the using and selling of a limited resource then trouble lies ahead as resources dwindle. Free market systems will eventually provide alternatives as they are doing now as prices spike or producing nations will run low on inventory causing much suffering along the way. We have had a sample of this as gas prices soared even with abundant supply. Producing areas suffered when prices fell and will have no recovery when resources run out. We have nothing to lose by changing our energy use to renewable non-polluting energy sources and a lot to gain. The additional benefit in security of not being reliant on fossil fuel cartels for our energy supplies is motive enough to change our ways. Arguing over the global warming is distracting and counter productive to energy independence which is essential to our well being.

Steve Maurer said, "There was never a time when the huge majority of scientists believed the earth was flat. The people who believed the earth was flat, that the sun went over the earth, and that the stars were pinholes in the veil, which let the light of heaven shine through - were all religious conservatives. Religious conservatives, I might add, who liked torturing people, much as they still do today."

I might have used a better example, like Eugenics, backed by large numbers of scientists, the Democratic Party and such luminaries as Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, John Maynard Keynes, etc. Or I might have said that Medical Science was almost unanimous in prescribing salt tablets for anyone exerting physical effort in hot weather. Today, I think it has been completely debunked as definitely of no benefit and possibly of some harm.

Assuming Steve is correct, and I have no reason to believe he would post it if he knew it was not true, I still think he misses the point. The point is that scientists are humans like the rest of us. They make mistakes. That's embarrassing so it is not common to see people jump up for the chance to say, "I was wrong." Similarly, scientists are also social creatures susceptible to peer pressure among other things.

The other point is that if this issue is worth the time to discuss, we should discuss it all and assume nothing.

My son writes a blog that addresses this issue often and, I think, intelligently. See it at www.jeffvail.net. You might specifically look at his post on giving up the car . His background is intelligence and energy both of which are important areas in any discussion of climate change.

Jeff, I like the way you phrase the issue:

Put Up Or Shut Up.

This is exactly what the retreatists in the Oregon Legislature need to do. The Governor, and the leadership, have an impressive list of bills that are moving through the Legislature. SB 80 to reduce pollution, SB 79 to reduce energy use in buildings, HB 2186 to reduce the carbon in fuels......and about 5 more bills...

The Gucci Lobbyists are out in force and are saying "things are swell in the economy and environment, let's keep doing things the same."

Well, no, our energy economy needs to change. If you don't like the Governor's bills, give us something else other than "ignore" the problem. The time for ignorance is over.

Put up, or shut up.

If people believe that humans are truly creating climate change rather than it being a natural occurrence; the real ostriches with their heads in the sand are the people who are advocating that government take the roll of a socialist dictator as opposed to seeking a responsible way to reduce and reverse human population growth thereby getting it back to earthly sustainable levels. .

There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. It costs the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.We have so much available to us such as wind and solar. Let's spend some of those bail out billions and get busy harnessing this energy. Create cheap clean energy, badly needed new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What a win-win situation that would be for our nation at large! I just read a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com Investing in energy independence would positively impact our economy and futures.

Unfortunately, all of the sexy alternatives (wind, solar, tide, hydrogen) are decades away from viably replacing coal or diesel. Currently, clean diesel is a far more nevironmentally friendly fuel than solar or hybrid battery operated vehicles when the entire life cycle is taken into consideration.

Up thread nuclear was suggested. That is the one sure solution.

Jeff, you may have cause to be freakin just about now. It seems as time goes by that the scientists have erred, by underestimating the severity and rate of global warming.

I thought this statement to Congress summed it up well.

Dr. Daniel Lashof, Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council:

"Mr. Chairman, our atmosphere is too big to fail."

One more possibility to add to the original two - a scenario that many of our political "leaders" are fond of embracing: China and India are going to doom us anyway, so let's just accept that we're all headed for destruction, and party hardy until it hits us. I find myself wincing whenever someone begins an argument about climate policy with the phrase, "But China and India will..." The "China and India" argument has been used to justify everything from not acting on global warming at all, to building a fleet of new nuclear reactors which will endow the next generation with thousands of tons of radioactive waste that they'll have to stand guard over for the next hundred thousand years or so (see KenRay's post above).

Ever since the environmental movement's beginning, middle/upper class white folks have strove to find someone else (preferably someone with darker skin, a lower income, and less voice in the political process) on which to blame our environmental problems. I find it interesting that it's never Europe or Russia that is held up as the inherently destructive population which will never, ever agree to shut down its coal plants. After all the "China and India" arguments I've heard, it seems impossible to escape the conclusion that there's more than a small dose of racism embedded in the argument. Have any of these people noticed that China has better fuel economy standards than the US?

True, the huge populations of both China and India present a major hurdle in addressing the climate crisis. But it's telling that this isn't even what really gets most of the "China and India" crowd so excited. Take KenRay's post above: nothing about growing populations, just a steadfast assumption that developing (read, predominantly non-white) countries are always going to lag behind the enlightened United States when it comes to environmental issues (yes, this is the country whose federal leaders only last week discovered that global warming "threatens public health and welfare").

Those of us who are serious about addressing the climate crisis have long known the "China and India" argument is largely about giving the US an excuse to do nothing. Now I'd like to put this out in the open: the argument also stems from a blatant racism which assumes that only white people can be environmentalists (after all, the descendants of Europe have done such a good job caring for the planet so far...)

We're not going to know what China and India will do until we in the US come forward and declare that we're ready to lead on this issue, and invite them to join us. So far that hasn't happened; pundits simply bring forward the China India argument as their trump card which "proves" that all must be lost. They rely on a hidden layer of racism in US society to ensure that no one questions the argument. Well I say we question it. Let's invite China and India to lead WITH us.

Jeff Alworth: For what it's worth, I am one of those convinced by the evidence. . . . the evidence is profound. Far too profound to risk the planet on a hail mary we don't yet even know about. Erica: I am truly sorry for having to ask this, but you say you have seen the profound evidence. Will you please show us the specific peer reviewed papers that make up this evidence that CO2 can cause dangerous warming, or has caused significant warming in the past. You say you have seen it, so please share it and please don’t call us trolls for simply asking to see your “profound evidence”

Jeff Alworth: This time, the thread is open to those who accept science. Erica: Please, just this once, show us the science. Real science. Peer reviewed paper citations.

First, the climatology community is the only scientific community that is hostile to dissent. Second, 'consensus' is not real science. Scientific consensus as foundation to create policy was debunk in the middle ages.

Lastly, humans should continue to do what they have done over the last 50 years - Continue to focus on providing Clean Water and Air throughout the world. Clean water and air will save more lives and be more beneficial to the Planet than any CO2 regulation or carbon offset program which is just is, well, ecoslavery and pure evil.

If anyone is interested in real science, here is a GW Believer who thinks the jury is still out on if the warming is AW. He has but one intent, getting the analysis right and has show that that AGW prophets, like Mann, play fast and loose with statistical analysis at best and don't provide their data/code to ensue public reproducibility at worst (which is the sole principle of Real Science and the peer review process). In a nutshell, he and others have shown the regression is not the proper tool to estimate historical temperature nor is it the proper tool to build predictive models.

He and other are participating in the real science debate and must be stopped, of course, in the name of Science.

global warming denier's comment deleted

Let me suggest a third choice that is not contrary to scientific consensus:

 3.  Global warming is likely to cause catastrophic changes around the globe that will lead to millions of human deaths, but my family is affluent and mobile enough to avoid drowning, starving, and other disasters, and, besides, I'd like it a little warmer where I live.

Humans are not very good at responding to dangers to people we do not know and who seem substantially different from us. Our brains aren't wired for it.

And a fourth:

 4.  Global warming may be real and dangerous, but I'm barely keeping things together in day-to-day life and have no capacity to deal with long-term societal problems.  I hope someone else takes care of the problem without cost to me.

jonnie wrote:

First, the climatology community is the only scientific community that is hostile to dissent. Second, 'consensus' is not real science. Scientific consensus as foundation to create policy was debunk in the middle ages.

And which consensus should be the foundation of policy, jonnie? Or should we simply ask you what do do?

Would put up or shut up apply to ending the biofuels mandates that worsen greenhouse emissions, raise food prices, and reduce biodiversity?

California Air Resources Board is getting ready to say that the ethanol emperor has no clothes:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/ethanol-worse-than-oil-california.php

When will Oregon follow suit? The federal E10 mandate is nationwide -- it doesn't require any particular state to use corn ethanol, so all the corn ethanol used in Oregon is because of the state blending mandate. So we can stop it.

Until then, we're only making climate crisis worse, helping Big Oil while pretending to oppose them.

Erica,

Start here: Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report

The individual chapters of the Working Group reports provide comprehensive references to the primary scientific literature on which IPCC assessments are based, and also offer the most detailed region- and sector-specific information.

I realize it's not as easy as reading an energy industry supported global warming debunking site, but if you want peer reviewed scientific studies [that is, studies that have stood up to peer review], this is the way to find them.

P.S. Where's the Blue Oregon campaign to shut down the Boardman coal plant? If we don't get that plant slated for shutdown quick, we're going to pay for $400-500 million worth of scrubbers for visible pollutants and ozone formers (NOx and SOx) and mercury --- but at the cost of making the plant LESS efficient, meaning we will see it burn more coal to produce the same output.

Or do we only want to talk about Chinese and Indian people -- who each emit roughly a 10th or 30th of the greenhouse gas emissions that each of us do -- must do, so that we can continue to buy millions of gigantic HD TVs and build ginormous McMansions to put them in so we can watch nature programs that show us melting polar ice?

Putting up means getting Oregon off coal now.

P.S. Where's the Blue Oregon campaign to shut down the Boardman coal plant? If we don't get that plant slated for shutdown quick, we're going to pay for $400-500 million worth of scrubbers for visible pollutants and ozone formers (NOx and SOx) and mercury --- but at the cost of making the plant LESS efficient, meaning we will see it burn more coal to produce the same output.

Or do we only want to talk about Chinese and Indian people -- who each emit roughly a 10th or 30th of the greenhouse gas emissions that each of us do -- must do, so that we can continue to buy millions of gigantic HD TVs and build ginormous McMansions to put them in so we can watch nature programs that show us melting polar ice?

Putting up means getting Oregon off coal now.

Data from the Proudman oceanographic project, the various ice monitoring measurements, and the three accepted global temperature sets of data all show that the modelling projections are widely over-forecasting. [i.e. the science in its purest form, the data, does not agree with the models]

Why are so many drastic and hugely disruptive policies being driven by non-science based assumptions?

Tom: Start here: Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report

The individual chapters of the Working Group reports provide comprehensive references to the primary scientific literature on which IPCC assessments are based, and also offer the most detailed region- and sector-specific information.

I can’t find any proof of a CO2-climate link, only “may” “could” and “might”. Please just point me to the one paper that proves CO2 can cause dangerous warming.

Erica,

I don't know your level of scientific education, but the concept of "proof" in science differs from vernacular use.

One could fill a sealed chamber with gas containing a high level of CO2 and "prove" that it becomes warmer under solar radiation than a similar chamber with a lower level of CO2. One can correlate historical levels of atmospheric CO2 with warm climatic periods to suggest a causal relationship. One cannot pump CO2 into earth's atmosphere [any faster than we are already] in order to "prove" that dangerous warming occurs. To do so would be neither practical nor ethical.

This type of "proof" should not be required for action by anyone wishing to avoid a fried ass. It IS the type of proof demanded by interests who wish to profit from business activity that harms earth's climate.

Terry Parker,

Please suggest how we might find a responsible way to reduce and reverse human population growth thereby getting it back to earthly sustainable levels without government acting as a socialist dictator.

Steve Maurer (and others)

"The problem with debating people who hate science and embrace ignorance is that there really is nothing to talk about. They don't know enough to put forward a coherent argument about anything, much less a plausible one."

Disagreeing with your point of view is not synonomous with 'hating science and emracing ignorance.' Sure, there are people on both sides of this issue that espouse positions that are nonsense. But it is a myth that everyone who does not subscribe to the party line on AGW is some sort of right-wing creationist.

I don't think the climate sensitivity estimates are correct. I think that negative feedback is far more likely than positive feedback. I'm pretty sure that both the absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere and the effect of that increase are logarithmic relationships and not linear. I believe the wealth of empirical evidence actually supports my position. So I don't believe that AGW is a bigger threat than say world poverty, and I don't support redirecting resources to fight a small or non-existant problem.

This does not make me anti-science. It does make me resent your ad hom attacks on anyone who disagrees with you.

Mr Civiletti, As the issue of AGW ramps up over time, in order to get more people on board, convincing people to reduce emissions is important. The logic path to get from 'C02 is a greenhouse gas' to 'what should I do about it(if anything)' is long and winding, with many gaps. Some of the scientific conclusions required to make these decisions are way out of reach of most people.

Comments like "It IS the type of proof demanded by interests who wish to profit from business activity that harms earth's climate." do nothing to move the argument foreward.

Tom Civiletti

"Please suggest how we might find a responsible way to reduce and reverse human population growth thereby getting it back to earthly sustainable levels without government acting as a socialist dictator."

I would suggest that the answer to this is well-known and based on solid data. Population growth has a clear inverse relationship to wealth. The richer a society becomes, the lower its birth rate. The reasons for this are numerous and well-documented, but essentially it boils down to the way children are viewed - as a source of labor in situations of destitution, and as a major expense in situations of prosperity.

The best way to reduce population growth is through the ongoing eradication of poverty. Turns out that use of energy (which correlates directly with creation of wealth) is not so much the problem as it is the solution.

"global warming denier's comment deleted" ??

How dare you libel me by labelling me a "global warming denier".

I linked you a temperature history chart of the last 12,000 years (Holocene temperatures). It shows at least 12 episodes of global warming. And a press release written by Nasa(science).

FACT: You're practice censorship, not free expression, and you are a denier of scientificly established climate history.

If I do any "trolling" it will be to warn people away from BlueOregon.com due to the strict censorship.

One can correlate historical levels of atmospheric CO2 with warm climatic periods to suggest a causal relationship.

That’s been done. They all show CO2 lags, NOT LEADS temperature. Antarctic ice cores are the classic. CO2 follows temperature changes by 800 years on average.

That’s why I ask for your proof - all that I have seen shows CO2 being the response, not the driver and these are from peer reviewed journals, not oil companies.

Global warming denier's comment deleted.

Steve: "But again, right now, the most up to date climate models are actually underestimating the rate of real world temperature increase we're seeing in the global climate."

I don't think there is any basis for this statement. The temperature data for the last several years is clearly below the predicted temperature of the models. A handful of years is too short a timescale to support the "global cooling" claims that some banty about, but at the same time you certainly can't use the data to support the idea that the models "underestimate" what is happening.

The same is true with current data on CO2 levels (not emissions, but levels of concentration) which are showing a rate of diminishing returns type of curve. Again, the timescale in question is short, and the quality of the Mauna Loa measurements is debatable, but that doesn't mean you can rely upon it to claim the opposite of what the short-term data demonstrates.

RE: Dr. Goldstein's deleted posts

I happen to see the post before the moderator deleted it, and took a look at the links the good Dr. provided. They were pretty sound, and worth looking at. I did not see any reason to delete the post.

RE: Erica's comments on CO2 lagging

Several journals have discussed why CO2 levels increase during and after periods of warming. Anyone with a basic science background and knowledge of chemistry will know that many substances out gas when temperatures are elevated - think about warm sodas, beer, and champagne. There is quite a bit of dissolved CO2 in the earth and in our oceans and lakes. As temperatures rise, their ability to contain dissolved gases lessens, and the gases are released into the atmosphere.

Yes, civilization may contribute and alter the composition of the atmosphere, but so do volcanoes. There have been reports in recent years showing that emissions from volcanic eruptions contribute considerably more than mankind over time. Recall recent recorded history of the last few hundred years where sizable volcanic eruptions did quite a lot to alter the expected weather - quite a few instances of "the year with no summer". the particulates released spread around the world, limiting the sun's warming rays in the temperate zones.

Well before man walked the earth, glaciers covered many parts of the northern and southern latitudes. Something besides mankind caused these periods of severe cold. Same goes for warming - fossil deposits of tropical plants in the northern climes would seem to indicate that these northern areas might have been quite warm at times.

I'm not a denier, but I will say that there are many more factors to consider than simply looking to limit mankind's contribution.

The science is very clear that there have been climate fluctuations long before man had any influence. The earth and the living beings adapted as necessary.

One attribute that man has is one of awareness - we think we can do something significant about these natural changes and cycles. Perhaps we can.

Perhaps, too, our proposed solutions might actually make matters worse. Unfortunately, the scope and timescales won't let us see cause and effect, except in the most extreme examples.

We do know how to poison the atmosphere, our land, and our water supply. We do have the means to do great damage. We do know how to snuff out life completely.

We also know how to leverage fear to pursue political goals. This too can have either benefit or damage, depending on one's viewpoint.

The focus on global cooling, global warming, or just change is mostly an attempt to harness the natural changes to pursue political goals. We all want to feel good about doing something we think is right.

Global warming denier's comment deleted.

Dude, you were warned. Dissent is not allowed. The debate is over.

There are two things we know are in fact certain, WMD's exist in Iraq and man made global warming is real.

Any bets on how long this post lasts?

Go the hell Censor-boy . You are proof that dumb people study "journalism" because thay can't handle an academic challenge.

BTW - There's a few million other web sites out there. I don't need your Nazi Censor-site. It sucks and so do you.

Ha Ha

Selfish 20-something guys with goatees and a weight problem and anxious to get put into a great deal on a 2009 Hummer, for only $289/month, will derail your best intentions.

Found the following from 2007 at National Geographic:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Source

Bring it. I've done solar astronomy since 1973. It is a very problematic area. I'm not saying nothing is known, but you can't do what you're doing with it.

I'll give you a perfect example. We know a lot about fusion and what it would take to use fusion as an industrial power source. We are not close to doing it. That is solar science. Capiche? Anyone saying "the sun tells us..." is a fraud, by definition. They are working backward from an a priori conclusion to use facts that could never be taken as direct evidence, unless you were engaging in circular logic.

Stars are still a mystery. We're at the that stage of the mystery novel where you've got a lot of facts, and still not much clue about what's going on. Like a mystery novel, that can change in a heartbeat, and the research should be better funded. Until then, preface all your great hypotheses with, "well, I think".

Posted by: mp97303 | Apr 21, 2009 2:55:34 PM

Global warming denier's comment deleted.

Dude, you were warned. Dissent is not allowed. The debate is over.

That's rich. Anyone uses the phrase "hobby breeding" around you and you're off line, but dissent and debate are a good thing.

Sounds like a Southern Democrat (yes, I know you're not). The similarity is that they talk individual liberties real big, when they disagree with a miniscule, but are all big government 99% and cultural censorship 99% of the time.

When a rightie talks rights, it's a temper tantrum. Full stop.

Tom - build public policy on scientific consensus is unsustainable and dangerous. Especially when it leaps from short article in Nature to law/regulations. Often peer reviewed papers are lengthy and detailed (Articles in Nature aren't) then engineering feasibility studies of thousands of pages are completed, tested, and the piloted before programs are completed and policy is implemented.

Imagine if the engineering feasibility and testing were skipped in the aerospace industry.

Tom: This type of "proof" should not be required for action by anyone wishing to avoid a fried ass. It IS the type of proof demanded by interests who wish to profit from business activity that harms earth's climate.

What level of proof is required before we ask billions of people to accept a lower standard of living and millions to die? Because that is what mandated CO2 reductions will surely do.

Were you able to come up with even ONE peer reviewed paper that contains something like: “we show that CO2 can cause run away global warming"? Absent that, perhaps you should re-evaluate your position that is sure to get many people killed.

Does anyone have a copy of the deleted messages?

I'd like them as an example of Oregon free speech.

Please Send to fredjones2833 at earthlink.net

Michael wrote:

Comments like "It IS the type of proof demanded by interests who wish to profit from business activity that harms earth's climate." do nothing to move the argument foreward.

I disagree, Michael. The big reductions in CO2 emissions will come when popular support allows governments to mandate lower CO2 emissions. Understanding that much of the global warming "debunking" effort is funded by the energy industry - along with conservative rich guys like Scaife - helps to discredit their efforts and build support for government mandates designed to combat global warming.

Erica wrote:

What level of proof is required before we ask billions of people to accept a lower standard of living and millions to die? Because that is what mandated CO2 reductions will surely do.

Again, Erica, it seems you lack understanding of the scientific method. Good scientists are conservative with their claims. Mathematicians produce "proofs". A biologist might "show", to use your term, that a particular species lives in a particular area by documenting its presence; while a chemist might "show that CO2 dissolved in H20 forms an acid by measuring change in pH. One cannot "prove" or even "show" that a particular level of atmospheric CO2 concentration leads to catastrophic climate change on present day earth unless one creates that catastrophic climate change - which is exactly the experiment that IPCC wants us to stop running.

I do not claim that ending fossil fuel combustion will be easy, cheap, or painless. I do understand that the failure to act on the best scientific evidence we have may lead to much more difficulty, expense, and suffering.

Demanding "proof" where none is possible is sophistry. Either you are practicing sophistry, or you have been victimized by it.

Tom: I do not claim that ending fossil fuel combustion will be easy, cheap, or painless. I do understand that the failure to act on the best scientific evidence we have may lead to much more difficulty, expense, and suffering. Shouldn’t you learn enough to determine which is worse: the alleged pain of warming or the proposed solution?

The only proposals so far have a high price: a lowered standard of living for far too many people. None of the popularly heard “solutions” are workable. Lets take a look - Solar. Cost - are you looking forward to poor people paying FIVE times what they pay today for electricity?

• Wind. Europe is finding it does not save energy.

• Mass transit. Compared to small cars, DOES NOT reduce CO2. DOES NOT reduce energy. Costs more than double cost of driving. Look at the numbers if you disagree.

• Biking & walking. Impractical in a modern society except for the low value workers because of the limited job shed and excess travel times.

• High density. Recent research shows that high density uses MORE ENERGY than conventional single family homes. They had been ignoring energy usage in common areas and the difference in unit size.

• Nuclear. Only practical source of non CO2 electricity. Illegal in Oregon. (Thanks forward looking progressives.)

Tom, I suggest that you learn how to look at real data and do basic arithmetic on the data.

Tom: Demanding "proof" where none is possible is sophistry. Either you are practicing sophistry, or you have been victimized by it

Demanding proof before you use the power of government to hurt billions of people (and cause the death of millions) is NOT SOPHISTRY, it is common sense.

I am amazed by how people of your ilk simply ignore government’s killing millions. Where is you outcry over great socialist killings by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler (yes Hitler was a socialist as in “National Socialist Party”) Many of Stalin’s and Mao’s murders were the result of grand plans to re-order society. Just like what you are proposing.

If you cannot prove the fundamental assumption behind the AGW hysteria, it is just that a hysteria. One stirred up by money grubbing corporations (Enron), vulture capitalists (Kleiner Perkins) and NYC bankers (Lehman Bros.) , fronted by “scientists” that said the solution to the coming ice age is to eliminate fossil fuel use, then when the cooling ended, switched to we must eliminate fossil fuels to save us from global warming (Schneider), sleezy politicians (AL Gore), and “scientists” that say it is OK to lie to manipulate people (Hansen, Schneider, Gore). That you cannot see this is a sad commentary on both you and other deluded progressives.

One final note:

Tom: failure to act on the best scientific evidence we have

This one line shows hwo utterly ignorant you are and wish to stay - you have purposely kept “best scientific evidence we have” out of this discussion by refusing to discuss the science:

I do plan to delete denier-trolls.

You are as logical as the typical bible thumper.

Global warming denier's comment deleted.

Kari Chisholm: The global warming deniers should take comfort in knowing that if we're wrong, then nothing bad will have happened - except that we'll all be living cleaner and greener. B: Nothing bad?

How about doubling or tripling the cost of energy? That WILL hurt real people.

How about the fact that the proposed changes to get us green energy are ALL very expensive or simply don’t work. The increased cost will hurt people. Is that what you want?

[portion that Kari mis-interpeted as denial was here] Kari - you should be ashamed of yourself.

B

Hilarious. BO is all about discussion, provided you swallow all their assumptions first. Great free speech blog you've got here. Part and parcel of how angry the Left is, even in victory.

you folks are denying comments that supposedly deny human caused global warming

this is ridiculous

you people are a bunch of facist pigs

Jeff Alworth: Oh, settle down. Moderators have a right to guide discussion. If you wish to pitch a childish fit, you forfeit your voice. B I DID NOT POST A CHILDISH FIT. I posted a low key statement that you had no evidence to support your position and you deleted it.

Clear censorship of a political discussion. How truly progressive. B

Erica: you seem irrelevant. COuld you please tell me how "great socialist killings" by despots relates to our responsibility to concern ourselves with environmental destruction? Concerning ourselves with the fact that we single-handedly are doing great harm to millions via consumption? Just not sure I see the linkage between the images, since, in my mind, our expansionistic consumption equates nicely with warlike behaviour, simply translated into a different dimension!

rw-

Didn't you hear Jeff's edict? "Others, ignore Erica." Mr. Alworth has spoken. So it shall be written. So it shall be done.

Golly, I guess it's only the moderators who don't forfeit their voice when they pitch a childish fit.

BlueOregon is a place for Oregonians judged to be progressive enough by the moderators to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip.

RW: COuld you please tell me how "great socialist killings" by despots relates to our responsibility to concern ourselves with environmental destruction? Concerning ourselves with the fact that we single-handedly are doing great harm to millions via consumption?

I guess you didn’t pay attention in history class (too much good smoke?) Or the history channel?

Most of those dictators had a grand plan to save the world. Hitler was saving the human race by purifying it of non-Aryans. Stalin was establishing a worker’s paradise. He killed many millions while the USA news media pretended all was well and starved millions more by following a fool, Lysenko, for his science. (You know, like BHO & Gore.) Mao was making a “great leap forward.”

They were all ruthless people, out for number one, that found a way to fool the people into letting them do the thinking. People just trusted and never checked the facts until it was too late. Just like Al Gore is out for his bank account ($100 million and counting) and most on this forum have never checked the facts. And just like Blue Oregon already has asked if it is time to start sending non-believers to re-education camps.

Sadly, no one around here seems to have enough education to understand that there is no alternative energy that works. There is only a lot of ideas that have never been proven on an utility scale. And they have placed the one and only source of power that does not emit CO2 off the table because they are scared of it.

RW: Just not sure I see the linkage between the images, since, in my mind, our expansionistic consumption equates nicely with warlike behaviour, simply translated into a different dimension! Where do you get crap like this? Would you rather have people live like they did in 1900?