I don't really consider myself a flat earther, but according to the UN carbon dioxide emissions from human activity was about 25 billion tons in 2003.

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid=

According to wiki, volcanos emit up to 240 million tons per annum, this is referenced, but not to a web page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Total natural CO2 emissions are in the order of 200 billion tons.

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/policies/1990s_calif_in_context/page1.html

However according to the scientists the natural carbon cycle more or less keeps atmospheric CO2 in balance, while the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be attributed to human activity:

"Several additional lines of evidence confirm that the recent and continuing increase of atmospheric CO2 content is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions – most importantly fossil fuel burning. First, atmospheric O2 is declining at a rate comparable with fossil fuel emissions of CO2 (combustion consumes O2). Second, the characteristic isotopic signatures of fossil fuel (its lack of 14C, and depleted content of 13C) leave their mark in the atmosphere. Third, the increase in observed CO2 concentration has been faster in the northern hemisphere, where most fossil fuel burning occurs.

Atmospheric CO2 is, however, increasing only at about half the rate of fossil fuel emissions; the rest of the CO2 emitted either dissolves in sea water and mixes into the deep ocean, or is taken up by terrestrial ecosystems."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm

Dan, I love how you make an assumption contrary to what I write then spend months proving what I did not say was wrong. But feel free to continue to be wrong it is your constitutional right.

For the rest of you all I am saying is that there is no proof that man is the cause of global warming but there is tons of proof that global warming and cooling is on a cycle that predates man. What little that man does may be a lot for humans but negligible for the Earth. The last time we were in such a dire situation was 30 years ago when we were told we only had 20 years to stop global cooling and not changing our lifestyle would kill us all. Now the exact same experts are telling us we have only 20 years to stop global warming or we will all die. An open mind is what is called for not some left wing religion that hates progress.

The figures are about right, not enough off to complain about. Now add to that sulfur dioxide another greenhouse gas and the other trace elements that volcanoes put out daily.

When you site the UN I am not sure if you site the actual report or the summary. The report is written by the scientist and the summary is written by politicians with an adgenda. An example was the highly touted summaary on second hand smoke which contradicted the actual report which said that second hand smoke had no effec on peoples health. Two reports from the same UN but totally different outcoms. The UN summary on global warming states that it is all mans fault with numbers changed from the real report to justify their conclusion. The actual report says that there is no conclusive evidence that man has any impact on global warrming. Read the report not the summary.

Nice theory, with no basis in fact since the earth is not a static environment. Now, do we go on pipe dreams? Or hard facts. The real fact is to do somthing when you have no clue, is more harmful than doing nothing.

But I do appreciate at least someone addressing Palladin's numbers. Yours may be right, and they may not be. So do you perform open heart surgery on a patient that has heart burn? I would want to know more before I cut into the victim. And so far, no one, not even the vaulted computer models, have proved anything other than they freaking dont know.

Lets see - facts we can agree on:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gases trap heat and raise temperatures (that's why they're called "greenhouse" gases).
The earth is currently in a warming trend.
We are spewing tons upon tons of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates and quantities.

Now lets assume, as you do, that CO2 isn't the problem. Forget all that. Given the facts above, that we all agree on, would you say the warming trend is going to get stronger, or weaker?

You want real science on this? www.realclimate.org - go there. Read. Remember, the scientists are the experts, not you. This is not a political issue. It is a scientific one.

The global cooling story appeared in Newsweek and Time. Newsweek has since effectively retracted that story. Newsweek said, "The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism. Astronomers have been warning for decades that life on Earth could be wiped out by a collision with a giant meteorite; it hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean that journalists have been dupes or alarmists for reporting this news."

Draginol, these guys aren't idiots. They are using top technology to come to these conclusions, in greater consensus than ever before. I know you understand how far technology has come in 30 years. Think about that.

Go ahead. Read more. Read what the scientists have to say.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027

It's not just "liberals" - are oil companies liberal?
BP
There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

Shell
Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

18 CEO's of Top Canadian Corporations
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

And there are more at that site. This isn't politics. It's science.

But what if they were wrong? Well, your question has been answered at RealClimate.org
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/

You say it's not real science because it's based on consensus, not facts. What? Because scientists all meet in a room and just decide to agree on something? No, they're SCIENTISTS. They agree because the science leads them to that.

And of course, Global Cooling. Read. Please - all of you. Read what the scientists have to say, not the politicians.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

Oh and to the hurricane-prediction poster - silly. It's a case of micro vs. macro. Try predicting any single stock on the market over one year. Pretty tough right? Now try predicting the entire composite market, as a whole, over 50 years. A lot easier huh?

Lets see - facts we can agree on: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases trap heat and raise temperatures (that's why they're called "greenhouse" gases). The earth is currently in a warming trend. We are spewing tons upon tons of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates and quantities. Now lets assume, as you do, that CO2 isn't the problem. Forget all that. Given the facts above, that we all agree on, would you say the warming trend is going to get stronger, or weaker? You want real science on this? www.realclimate.org - go there. Read. Remember, the scientists are the experts, not you. This is not a political issue. It is a scientific one.

I would advise you go read the tail end of reply #16. Those guys are actual scientists also. And "just" for the record...it's considered bad form to use a blog site/forum as evidence or linking.

That is the statement that shows your ignorance. Not only is it a political statement, it's a financial one as well.

No-one denies the fact that the planet has warmed a small amount. What is in contention is just how significant this change is, and the root cause of the change.



Which still amounts to a very small amount (on the order of 2%) of the total "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere.

People love to buy into this sort of scary the world is ending kind of stuff but the simple truth is that the world has been warmer in the past, and colder, and will continue to cycle as is natural despite what we do.

Yes, the scientists who produce these reports are indeed intelligent. They're intelligent enough to know what produces the research money upon which they make their living. If you're foolish enough to believe that people have no selfish motivations I truly feel sorry for you. There's a sucker born every minute.

1) he has little scientific background, and 2) he is willing to lump and stereotype people with opposiing points of view when it suits his purpose.

I didn't say I had little scientific background. I said I'm not a scientist. Before writing a lengthy and haughty essay, you might want to make sure your own reading comprehension is solid.

For the record, I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and Applied Mathematics. While that doesn't qualify me as any sort of scientist, as anyone with an advanced engineering degree can tell you, it's hardly what one would consider "little scientific" background.

You can repeat the "Wise scientists insist.." mantra but it doesn't change any of the facts that I covered:

(1) Temperature has increased since 1975

(2) CO2 levels have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution

(3) CO2 is a green-house gas.

(4) Mankind puts N tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Therefore: The earth's temperature has risen slightly because of human production of green house gases.

That is, the global warming "theory" (hypothesis) in a nutshell.  I have looked at a great deal of the data and it all falls back to what I mentioned above along with people arrogantly saying "But the wise scientists have a consensus! A consensus!"

Because I do have considerable scientific background, I am quite familiar with the scientific method.  When someone provide an experiment that proves the hypothesis, even in a lab, then we can talk. Until then, it's just a hypothesis that the left demands we have faith in the consensus of wise scientists.

The only facts we have are the 4 mentioned above. Everything else is speculation and hypothesis.

That's the problem. We haven't made up our minds. It would be irresponsible to move forward with any definite statement with such a limited amount of data in such a huge system. The point is, these scientists ARE leaping to sweeping conclusions, and advising massive social change based upon what is certainly weak science.

Exactly.  My article doesn't state that mankind isn't the cause. My position is: I don't know.  My personal opinion, if I had to bet, is that humans are a minor variable in the bigger picture. But I am not trying to argue one way or the other.

However, those on the "humans are causing global warming" tend to be very political about it and insisting on very harsh social policy changes based on what is pretty shakey science right now.  Get a computer model that can predict the temperature for the next 10 years (just an average temperature would be good enough) and then make the case.

Who's really the close minded one? The one who insists on global warming being caused by human activity being a fact or the person who simply says "I'm not sure yet."

Which brings us back to the topic -- what IF in 5 or 10 years the temperature starts to decline. Because I think this time, such a huge stink has been made about global warming that the environmentalist movement won't be able to sweep it under the rug like they did last time when the earth was cooling.

 

You're not suggesting that Chicken Little will be found out are you?

Now lets assume, as you do, that CO2 isn't the problem. Forget all that. Given the facts above, that we all agree on, would you say the warming trend is going to get stronger, or weaker? You want real science on this? www.realclimate.org - go there. Read. Remember, the scientists are the experts, not you. This is not a political issue. It is a scientific one.

I assume you're not an American. I say that because it's highly unusual for an American to simply wave away his responsibility to be informed on issues that affect him.  So no, I'm not going to simply say "Oh, the scientists will tell me" because the issue is far too politicized. The upcoming UN report on climate change, for instance, comes from a political body, not a scientific one.

I'll listen to scientists on proven facts or theories that have been proven to various degrees in the lab.  But I'm not going to just say "oh, well, the scientists say..."

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are putting more into the atmosphere. Obvoiusly this has some effect. But it might be such a minute effect as to be immeasurable. 

And I wouldn't care about the debate that much until the political aspects start getting shriller -- vast and expensive proposals to reduce CO2 emissions at an expedited rate. 

The leading proponent of the global warming crusade is the former vice president of the United States. So be honest - it is most definitely a political issue.

You say it's not real science because it's based on consensus, not facts. What? Because scientists all meet in a room and just decide to agree on something? No, they're SCIENTISTS. They agree because the science leads them to that.

I recommend a book called "A Short History of Nearly Everything". Written by Bill Bryson (a left of center guy so don't worry, he's safe for you) who documents a lot of the history of scientific research.

And the fact is, consensus science is often wrong wrong wrong.  Evolution (the early resistance to it that s), age of the earth, age of the universe, eugenics, and all kinds of other things have been led astray due to "consensus". 

We had a "consensus" about the 4 humours for centuries. How'd that work out? But hey, those were SCIENTISTS. They believed in it because the science led that to it!

People who don't believe it to be political need to read up on what Kyoto really means for the world's diplomatic and economic systems. It's a money-making proposition, and France stated recently that we'd either play ball or they'd start a "pollution tax" on nations that don't.

Purely scientific endeavors are those which test a hypothesis, and present a conclusion to the world with an open mind to its use and its reliability. This isn't how it works with global warming. We get the "if we don't do this by then then we're going to have global chaos" crap.

It's the "do this by then" part that moves it from the scientific to the political. Has-been nations with little or no hope of ever regaining their international status have pounced on the idea, because they can sell their "pollution credits" to industrial nations, basically creating a cottage industry out of mediocrity. If that isn't political, I'm not sure what is.

So sure, the scientists who simply study this and post their findings, allowing for due doubt, are being scientific about it. Those who push forward into politics and economics because of their conclusions have overstepped their bounds, and have become pawns for graft schemes at the international level. If they want to be taken seriously, they should stop and leave the political and economic engineering to the people of the nations in question.

You'd be hard pressed to find any advance in science that didn't get vicious opposition and skepticism from people whose world view was being overturned. That's normal, and if man ends up being found to be the cause of global warming, I'll embrace the idea. Until then, I'll be dubious of any scientist who climbs aboard snake oil wagons and political stumps.

I guess you could dumb it down by saying it doesn't appear that many of these passionate advocates ever watched many Twilight Zones, or read many cautionary science fiction tales. Like a doctor removing something that is is almost positive shouldn't be there, we always seem to regret it when we leap ahead and take nature into our own hands.

Have we really earned the right to use the knowledge of 'global warming'? Are these sweeping, panic-fueled policies really the measure of a society who soberly, and respectfully, tinkers with nature? How often does the passionate protagonist, determined to save the world, make a monster?

What I cited is from the report (the third one, not the more recent 4th one, as that has not been released yet), not the summary.



As far as I can figure out from the report the scientists have observed that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate less than what human activity is contributing. And further they know the increased carbon dioxide is from burning fossil fuel, due to its chemical composition, the corresponding decrease in oxygen and discrepanies between the northern and southern hemispheres. To me this appears to have at least some basis in fact.

I'm with you there. We can accept that we produce a hell of a lot of pollution and try to cut down (especially in cities and river systems purely on the basis on public health) but we really don't understand our world enough to go 'solving' global warming or cooling. As with most human interferences with nature we'll almost certainly stuff up, and a global stuff up would be a catastrophe.

You'd be hard pressed to find any advance in science that didn't get vicious opposition and skepticism from people whose world view was being overturned. That's normal, and if man ends up being found to be the cause of global warming, I'll embrace the idea. Until then, I'll be dubious of any scientist who climbs aboard snake oil wagons and political stumps.

I agree.  Science doesn't require faith.  If global warming turns out to be man made, then I'll support reasonable efforts to do something about it.  But shrill, arrogant, bile coming from agenda-driven groups is not compelling to me.

I'm with you there. We can accept that we produce a hell of a lot of pollution and try to cut down (especially in cities and river systems purely on the basis on public health) but we really don't understand our world enough to go 'solving' global warming or cooling. As with most human interferences with nature we'll almost certainly stuff up, and a global stuff up would be a catastrophe.

I feel the same way.  I certainly support us doing what we can to reduce the impact we have on the environment. Even in my lifetime, the environment has become much better.  When I was a kid, Lake Erie caught on fire.  Now it's a fairly clean lake. The air no longer has the smell of car exhaust and the skies don't have a dingy hue to it. 

A lot of good things have been done for the environment -- things that happened because of businesses and environmentaly conscious consumers.    No one wants to live in a poluted world. 

But I don't think most people are willing to cripple our economy based on a hypothesis that CO2 (the stuff we breath out incidentally) may be destroying the environment when there's little evidence to support that. Because first they have to prove CO2 is the cause, which I don't think they will and then they have to prove that it's a bad thing(tm).  In the 20th century, the temperature went up 0.7 degrees.  But our economy grew at something like 7000%.  I'm not sure most people would consider that a bad trade off.

What I can't accept is paying welfare checks to nations that have no industry, just so we can keep right on polluting. If polluting is bad, then we need to stop, not just be blackmailed by nations that don't have enough population or economic success to be major polluters. This system is more like pre-paying punitive damages because of what we THINK will eventually happen to the environment.

Never mind that the vagrants in these nations eat up the product of our polluting industries. The sad part is, you can bet the next Dem President will sign on to it. Joining the Kyoto accord will be one more bullet point in the list of 'pros' to the empty headed, and they'll do it without batting an eye. The Dem majority in Congress won't dare block it.

I hope I'm wrong. Clinton didn't buy into it. I tend to think, though, that the hype is far too loud now.

I'm all for the science, and concensus approaches to things are inevitable, if often wrong (happens all the time in medicine), but the notion that mankind is 'responsible' for global warming, as opposed to contributing to it by a microtitch, just doesn't pass the smell test, especially considering where we were 30 years ago.

E=MC^2 is fact. [unquote]

didn't you know that the speed of light is not constant

Sorry Roy, one has nothing to do with the other. To be fair the formula was accepted then proven then disproven and now is in limbo. The formula only works within a limited range.