31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

[spacedteddybear]

Well the article was an interesting read. Gonna have to read the research paper later when I got more caffeine in my system. My comments:

-The petition itself neither verifies or falsifies either sides of this issue. Despite the numerous number of people that are scientifically educated, only a few have an authoritative opinion on the subject matter. This does not mean everyone else's opinions are irrelevant; On the contrary, their education and background allows them to be more logically and scientifically critical than the common layman. It is however a petition, and science is not verified by popular opinion no matter how much education they have, unless they are specifically qualified and specialized in that particular field IE. Peer Reviewed many many many times and over again just to be sure.

-It can't be denied now that the activities of human beings have some effect on the climate.

-It seems that the author of the OP seems to have a misunderstand of what Gore is in this issue. He's a figure head. He's done his reading sure, but not the homework, quizzes, and exams. He is speaking for the scientists who believes that GW is an occuring fact. Lets face it, scientists, no matter how qualified they are, no matter how many years they have spent specializing in their fields, have less power and influence ( and in some cases aren't as qualified) over public opinion than your typical shock jock or C-list celebrity using watered down sound bites provided by the opposition. Regardless, Gore does deserve credit for being on the front of Global warming for 20+ years now, rather than being a bandwagon jumper.

- If the Earth does undergo periodic warming without our undue influence, wouldn't it make sense to keep our effect on the environment then at a minimum? We don't have any long term models models of our influence, but I would rather not wait until everything goes to hell ( or the freezer) before we did something about it.

 

[tbewick]

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is an institution I have heard of before and it was referred to in this Royal Society document:

'...There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. They appear motivated in their arguments by opposition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, which seek urgent action to tackle climate change through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Often all these individuals and organisations have in common is their opposition to the growing consensus of the scientific community that urgent action is required through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. But the opponents are well-organised and well-funded. For instance, a petition was circulated between 1999 and 2001 by a campaigning organisation called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which called on the US Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition claimed that “proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind”.

These extreme claims directly contradict the conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report, which states that “reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to stabilize their atmospheric concentrations would delay and reduce damages caused by climate change”. The petition was circulated together with a document written by individuals affiliated to OISM and to the George C Marshall Institute, another campaigning organisation. On 20 April 1998, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a warning about the document circulated with the petition because it had been presented “in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” The statement pointed out: “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal”.'

Page 3-4, 'A Guide to the Facts and Fiction about Climate Change', Royal Society document, March 2005.
http://royalsociety.org/trackdoc.asp?id=1630&pId=4761

The publications I have come across on this subject mostly say that the overall evidence favours human-induced global warming:

1. Sir John Houghton's evidence to the UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5011802.htm
2. Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Ken Lo, David W. Lea, and Martin Medina-Elizade. 2006. 'Global temperature change'. PNAS 103: 14288–293.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/39/14288
3. 'Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions'. National Research Council.
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/ClimateChangeScience.pdf
4. 'Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years'. National Research Council.
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
5. 'Detecting and Attributing External Influences on the Climate System: A Review of Recent Advances'. The International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group, 2004. Review article for the 'Journal of Climate'.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/pdf/idag.pdf

In summary, radiation from the sun reaches the Earth and warms the planet. Atmospheric carbon dioxide (along with other gases like methane) is known to absorb heat (in the form of infrared radiation) from the Earth's surface and re-radiate it up into space and back down to the Earth's surface. A feedback effect also exists where atmospheric water vapour acts to trap infrared radiation.

Human activities are responsible for present-day atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations being at their highest level for at least ~1/2 million years (as verified through ice core measurements). Radiative forcing calculations, state-of-the-art climate models, studies of Earth's climate history, and the observed increase in global temperature, all provide evidence supporting human-induced climate change.

To emphasize the need for urgent action on climate change, I think it is worth mentioning how large future changes in climate could be:

'At a greenhouse gas level of 850 ppm CO2 [equivalent], we have more than a 50 % chance of global warming of more than five degrees Centigrade. So, to talk about the risks associated with temperature increases of five degrees, six degrees, seven degrees Centigrade is not at all fanciful. These are the kinds of risks the world runs if, as a world, we do nothing about curbing emissions.'

Economist Prof. Nicholas Stern, talking about the effects of climate change. Page 13, 'Yale Symposium on the Stern Review'. February 2007.
http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/climate/forms/FullText.pdf

See also the attached image taken from the above document, page 10.

 

[unreal.freak]

I did a little research on Al Gore and came up with this article. It adds a little twist to the topic

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255484,00.html

Enjoy!
Tommy

 

[MinusTheBear]

I did a little research on Al Gore and came up with this article. It adds a little twist to the topic

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255484,00.html

Enjoy!
Tommy

Fox news is not a credible source on this issue IMO, to much bias from a political standpoint. I take all the information from fox news with a grain of salt especially with stuff like this.

 

[gene]

I did a little research on Al Gore and came up with this article. It adds a little twist to the topic

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255484,00.html

Here is an article about how he allegedly gives back for the energy he uses:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/28/politics/main2522844.shtml

 

[Rickster71]

While some argue over the validity and purpose of a petition, and argue over what scientist is more qualified, and who's dad can beat up your dad.

A flimflam of epic proportions is taking place:

First, Gore sets up a company and is chairman of, Generation Investment Management, that firm will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism.

Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the crap out of the population.

Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act.

Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists.

Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in.

Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens.

It's Al Gore this time.
Though, all politicians are taking the middleclass tax payer for a ride.

 

[unreal.freak]

Fox news is not a credible source on this issue IMO, to much bias from a political standpoint. I take all the information from fox news with a grain of salt especially with stuff like this.

Find me one article of Al Gore disputing/denying what is said by this uncredible source!

Peace,
Tommy

 

[MinusTheBear]

Find me one article of Al Gore disputing/denying what is said by this uncredible source!

Peace,
Tommy

I should have been more clear in stating that this information may very well be true in that article about al gore, but when it comes to the issue of global warming they are a very bias source to get information from on this topic. Fox news has an agenda too not just al gore.

 

[Halon451]

A fine society and a fine place of learning. As for me, my background is not too shabby, but I certainly have not served as president of a professional society (being chair of an academic department at a university is as high up as I wish to go). I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics and my field of study is non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) radiative transfer in the atmospheres of cool stars. I also have done research on the solar atmosphere, (solar system) planetary and extrasolar planetary atmospheres. I have a pretty good understanding of opacities and thermodynamics in these types of atmospheres as well. I have not published any refereed papers concerning the Earth's current global warming problem, but have professional friends (at NASA/Goddard) that have. Most of the people in my line of work are convinced of the evidence that support that humans are the direct cause of the enhancement of CO2 and CH4 (two greenhouse gases) in the Earth's atmosphere over the past hundred years through deforrestation and the advancement of industry. This is based on conversations I have had with my colleagues at professional meetings on astrophysics. Also, the relationship between atmospheric warming and greenhouse gases is fairly well understood (though it is still a complicated process). Though the scientists in my line of work do not represent a big sample, it should be pointed out here that we do have a fairly good understanding of radiative and convective processes in atmospheres. I just wanted to let you know about my background since you asked.

Astodon, I will definitely concede to your judgment as you appear to be much more qualified to speak on this than any other poster yet, including myself. Still, it is hard for me to be fully convinced when I cite the following, that maybe you can help me understand. As an astrophysicist, I would think you'll have no problem answering these simple questions. I may not be fully qualified in studies of the climate, atmospheric conditions or solar events, but given I am in the field of Nuclear Engineering, I do have a very good grasp on thermodynamics, heat transfer, and industrial processes.

1.) How do you explain the correlation between what is happening on earth and recent sunspot activity?

2.) What is your view on the discovery that the polar ice caps on Mars are also receding, indicating that any planetary rise in average temperature is indicative of solar influence, versus earth-bound/man-made influence?

See, these are the things that come in and punch huge holes in the logic as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I've seen all the graphs - I've seen Al Gore's movie, I've paid attention and I've been plugged in. I'm not some old right-wing codger sitting on his rifle, unwilling to budge for the sake of staying his ground. I'm a truly inquisitive person, and if someone can offer me conclusive proof that we as humans are the direct cause of GW, then I will gladly get behind it; until then, it's just another dog and pony show, and the very ones who are shoving it down our throats are the ones who are raking it in by the millions - and I am naturally distrustful of any politician or former politician spearheading a campaign that is soley based on science and scientific evidence.

Sorry folks, but the fact of the matter is the jury is split five ways from Friday on this one, so we can bark at each other all day long, it's not changing the fact that maybe nobody has a clue of what is taking place - we just have ideas. Period.

 

[Halon451]

Fox news is not a credible source on this issue IMO, to much bias from a political standpoint. I take all the information from fox news with a grain of salt especially with stuff like this.

I will give you that - Fox News is as slanted as the NY Times, just in the other direction. When discussing science and factual evidence, I will not entertain one iota of information and/or discussions from the media's perspective, left, right, up or down.

 

[emorphien]

I don't think this is an argument that will be settled for a long, long, long time.

An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.

The way this is worded is important. It's not that global warming may not be real, or that humans may not be causing or aggravating it; the big issue is that we simply don't really know how profound any human impact on the environment might be. To claim, like Gore has, that humans have a proven negative effect on the environment is fallacious. The converse is also true, nobody has really proven we haven't affected the environment.

 

[Rickster71]

I don't think this is an argument that will be settled for a long, long, long time.


The way this is worded is important. It's not that global warming may not be real, or that humans may not be causing or aggravating it; the big issue is that we simply don't really know how profound any human impact on the environment might be. To claim, like Gore has, that humans have a proven negative effect on the environment is fallacious. The converse is also true, nobody has really proven we haven't affected the environment.

I agree.
We have caused air, and water pollution, toxic waste.
The globe has changed temp.
I have a problem when the issue is used for political, and monetary gain.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I agree.
We have caused air, and water pollution, toxic waste.
The globe has changed temp.
I have a problem when the issue is used for political, and monetary gain.

I have a problem when political bias or the promise of monetary gain act as blinders that prevent people from acknowledging the reality of these issues and thinking about ways to solve them.

 

[MinusTheBear]

An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.


Petitions on this issue means absolutely nothing. The fact that people with degrees have signed this is meaningless. Global warming is science based which means the only thing that matters is research that is published in scholary sources which means their research has to meet certain criteria and ethical standards before it is published like presenting it in front of a panel of professors that are experts in set fields involved in the research (for PHD research this is a very grueling process). Published research from students, scientists etc... either proving or disproving certain aspects of global warming is the only thing that matters as well as the opinions of the individuals that are doing this research.

IMO this petition is totally flawed and has no bearing on this issue at all. What we should look at is research papers on global warming and argue about them not petitions!

 

[emorphien]

I agree.
We have caused air, and water pollution, toxic waste.
The globe has changed temp.
I have a problem when the issue is used for political, and monetary gain.

That's what has really ruined this whole thing. A legitimate concern worthy of global scientific discussion is really mostly a big political talking point now.

MinusTheBear, I agree with you as well. This petition is meaningless. The first problem is the bolded sentence at the top of the article claims one thing:

An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.

I don't think this is something that many people would disagree with. At least, fewer than what I'm about to get in to.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

There's plenty of research that may suggest the opposite. The real issue is what this talks about, the poll is about this, not about Gore is I am understanding it correctly. And thus this article fails to mention anything about what the other responses are and how many people with the same qualifications (educated, PhDs, etc) believe that there is good evidence showing some of these concerns are possibly real.

This article, in the end, is little more than a fluff piece. I don't know anything about the guy that wrote it, but not presenting the data from the survey indicates they either have a weak case or just don't know what they're doing.

Aside from insignificant and likely political arguments such as this, there is good research being done to study these concerns and determine what, if any effect we have and whether these things are really bad or just natural cycles we shouldn't worry about. We need to wait and listen to the results from good unbiased studies with unbiased ears.

All that being said, regardless of how great our impact is, I don't see anything wrong with trying to be more responsible citizens of this earth and trying to reduce our impact, large or small, on the environment.

 

[Halon451]

An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.


Petitions on this issue means absolutely nothing. The fact that people with degrees have signed this is meaningless. Global warming is science based which means the only thing that matters is research that is published in scholary sources which means their research has to meet certain criteria and ethical standards before it is published like presenting it in front of a panel of professors that are experts in set fields involved in the research (for PHD research this is a very grueling process). Published research from students, scientists etc... either proving or disproving certain aspects of global warming is the only thing that matters as well as the opinions of the individuals that are doing this research.

IMO this petition is totally flawed and has no bearing on this issue at all. What we should look at is research papers on global warming and argue about them not petitions!

So we can throw the petition out the window and forget about it, that's fine. I more or less agree that the petition itself does not carry any weight on its own and holds no scientific merit amongst the global community. My stance on it has been and continues to be that it does not change the fact that knowledgeable people have looked at the data and felt compelled to challenge it. To me, that is the significant point here - I would like to see this carried further by actual scientific research from the opposing standpoint, with offered data and hard facts. Just the very fact that certain people have added their names to a list, which in this firestorm of political, social and scientific controversy, could very well jeopordize their credibility, and even possibly their careers is something IMO to be considered. It shows they feel very strongly on this issue, and rather than seeing their names on a piece of paper, I would really like to hear what they have to say on the matter.

And again, I agree with Rickster - we all want to take care of the planet on which we live, absolutely no doubt about it. Bills and Acts of Congress have come about since the beginning that serve to protect numerous environmental aspects, and I have no problem getting behind them, as long as they are legitimate claims, and not so steeped in political ambition. That to me, is the crux of this matter - and as long as Al Gore and Co. is leading the charge on GW, he has the money and the influence to override even the best scientific opposition in the process, paired with a mass public who, like lemmings would follow the herd right over the cliff before they realized the monumental error in what they initially thought was at stake.

 

[Rickster71]

Just to keep the point of this, or any petition from being lost.

It was to symbolize the fact that Al Gore's beliefs were not a foregone conclusion. Certainly not as much as the kowtowing press would lead us to believe.
If the average person were to believe everything they read in the press; it would appear all scientists are in concurrence. The petition is meant to show they are not.

If were to believe all the information the press spins, the USA would've never purchased Alaska for 1.9 cents an acre, from Russia, in 1867.

 

[tbewick]

While there is widespread notice of global climate change, and certainly mankind has contributed to the environment, as have all species on this little planet, there is NO scientific consensus as to the repercussions of humans' participation. As I pointed out in another thread, and you all seem to dismiss without thought or discussion...the global warming during the Cretaceous period, roughly 90 million years ago, was far more atmospherically damaging...and there is no model, no evidence as to what caused that one. If you folks believe one side of this question or the other, you're simply NOT looking at the confused data models. We do not have enough information to form a (non-political!) provable hypothesis on the matter.

The position of requiring a proof on this subject would probably lead to no action ever being taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Due to the potential effects of human-induced climate change, principally loss of species and the poorest of the poor being unfairly hurt, I think decisions need to be made based upon the best available evidence.

Attribution studies provide evidence for human-induced climate change. The signal (human-induced climate change) is stronger than the background noise (natural climate variability). Climate scientists like Profs. Richard Lindzen and Roger Pielke Sr, argue that the climate models used in such studies are an inadequate simulation of natural climate variability. They argue that the observed changes in the global mean temperature over the past 50 years could be due to natural climate variability. This is a minority view in the scientific community*.

Consideration of climate sensitivity (the equilibrium global mean temperature response for a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration) means that even without attribution studies, most scientists think that the Earth will warm with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Professors Lindzen and Pielke Sr. have argued that the climate is relatively insensitive to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Professor Pielke Sr's estimate for climate sensitivity (0.3 deg celsius) is used on the 'Junk Science' website.

The IPCC best-estimate for climate sensitivity is 3 deg C (5 deg Fahrenheit):

'...I think that that 5 degree estimate has a lot of backing for it. It is not based simply on just throwing it into the models and seeing what the models do, but one can do simple, ‘‘back of the envelope’’ calculations with the basic physics in those models that says that if you assume that water in the atmosphere is going to behave in that warmer world the way it does today, that we are going to have relative humidities and cloud amounts like we have today, then that is the number you are going to get, something like 5 degrees Fahrenheit.

You can make that number different if you want. You can assume that the atmosphere is going to get dryer, that clouds are going to shrink. You can make it bigger by assuming the opposite kinds of changes.

To be frank, we do not know whether they might go one way or the other, but in the absence of a real clear understanding of how they are going to change, it would seem like the most conservative assumption would be that they are going to behave much like they do now. So, that is where that 5 degrees comes from.

It is also backed by the kind of sensitivity that we would need to explain the temperature changes that the ice core records tell us happened in connection with the ice ages and the ratio of those temperature changes to the changes in solar energy.

So, I guess I would attach that same 90 percent kind of confidence to that number but with full admission that it could turn out to be too high or too low. But it is the best we can give you right now.'

Climate scientist Prof. Eric Barron. Evidence to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. June 2001. Pages 21-22.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=f:76302.pdf

Even if you take the view that Professors Lindzen and Pielke Sr. are right, you must acknowledge that the views of other scientists have value as well. In other words, Professor Lindzen's and Pielke Sr's views are no more provable than the views of other scientists. It therefore seems reasonable to me to look at the potential consequences of a business-as-usual approach, or one that sees us actively trying to reduce our emissions.

* 'The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.'
'Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions'. National Research Council. Page 3.
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/ClimateChangeScience.pdf

 

[jinjuku]

* 'The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.'
'Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions'. National Research Council. Page 3.
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/ClimateChangeScience.pdf

tbewick, all those links you provided to peer reviewed, accepted by the scientific community at large, studies is really going to get you no where with some people.

There are simply people that in the face of all the INDEPENDENT studies going on, for what ever reason, don't believe it. Simply mind boggling. They think all the links posted here are just some prop so Al Gore (of all people) can cash in...

 

[Tomorrow]

The position of requiring a proof on this subject would probably lead to no action ever being taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Due to the potential effects of human-induced climate change, principally loss of species and the poorest of the poor being unfairly hurt, I think decisions need to be made based upon the best available evidence.

Attribution studies provide evidence for human-induced climate change. The signal (human-induced climate change) is stronger than the background noise (natural climate variability). Climate scientists like Profs. Richard Lindzen and Roger Pielke Sr, argue that the climate models used in such studies are an inadequate simulation of natural climate variability. They argue that the observed changes in the global mean temperature over the past 50 years could be due to natural climate variability. This is a minority view in the scientific community*.

Consideration of climate sensitivity (the equilibrium global mean temperature response for a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration) means that even without attribution studies, most scientists think that the Earth will warm with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Professors Lindzen and Pielke Sr. have argued that the climate is relatively insensitive to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Professor Pielke Sr's estimate for climate sensitivity (0.3 deg celsius) is used on the 'Junk Science' website.

The IPCC best-estimate for climate sensitivity is 3 deg C (5 deg Fahrenheit):

'...I think that that 5 degree estimate has a lot of backing for it. It is not based simply on just throwing it into the models and seeing what the models do, but one can do simple, ‘‘back of the envelope’’ calculations with the basic physics in those models that says that if you assume that water in the atmosphere is going to behave in that warmer world the way it does today, that we are going to have relative humidities and cloud amounts like we have today, then that is the number you are going to get, something like 5 degrees Fahrenheit.

You can make that number different if you want. You can assume that the atmosphere is going to get dryer, that clouds are going to shrink. You can make it bigger by assuming the opposite kinds of changes.

To be frank, we do not know whether they might go one way or the other, but in the absence of a real clear understanding of how they are going to change, it would seem like the most conservative assumption would be that they are going to behave much like they do now. So, that is where that 5 degrees comes from.

It is also backed by the kind of sensitivity that we would need to explain the temperature changes that the ice core records tell us happened in connection with the ice ages and the ratio of those temperature changes to the changes in solar energy.

So, I guess I would attach that same 90 percent kind of confidence to that number but with full admission that it could turn out to be too high or too low. But it is the best we can give you right now.'

Climate scientist Prof. Eric Barron. Evidence to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. June 2001. Pages 21-22.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=f:76302.pdf

Even if you take the view that Professors Lindzen and Pielke Sr. are right, you must acknowledge that the views of other scientists have value as well. In other words, Professor Lindzen's and Pielke Sr's views are no more provable than the views of other scientists. It therefore seems reasonable to me to look at the potential consequences of a business-as-usual approach, or one that sees us actively trying to reduce our emissions.

* 'The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.'
'Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions'. National Research Council. Page 3.
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/ClimateChangeScience.pdf

In yet another thread on this topic..and now again, tbewick, you have the calm and reasoned approach worthy of discussion. Many thanks.

Lindzen's work in particular is, while to the point discussed here, still an admission of global climate change. And as you correctly point out, the difficulty in demonstrating the finality, or potential for damaging climate change is what spurs him to use caution in his research and reporting (emphasis added for others here who believe no sane or competent scientist in this field would say such a thing).

It is undoubtedly prudent to do something to mitigate the potential damage of humanity's involvement with causative greenhouse gases/polution. The problem I have is with two things. First, what is it we actually do to mitigate the potential damage? Might we fall into the all-too-typical manmade trap of creating worse situational conditions through mucking around with Mother Nature. Might the cure be worse than the the symptom? That would require more than a little luck as well as intense study and preparation for action, not to mention near universal, international cooperation. Second, the cost to the U.S. alone for implementing just the Kioto Agreement has been estimated in excess of $400,000,000,000! That's a lot of zeroes. That's a lot of taxes that will come out of our pockets (and not just the "rich oil mongers"). Halon and others here have valid concerns about this part of the "cure". We humans have pretty limited vision into the future when it comes to predicting social and economic pitfalls...not to mention next week's weather!

My point continues to be that yes, we might have a reversible, or perhaps non-reversible problem. Or we may not have a problem at all if some scientists such a Lindzen and Pielke are correct. But I certainly want more information than what has buzzed out of the media, politicians', environmentalists', and celebrities' mouths. When we're playing with the future of the planet, possibly the future of our economy or way of life, I want sober research and not bandwagon politicizing and divisive insults.

EDIT: I think that we have not seen definitive research as of yet. When the modeling can at least account for the global warming during the Cretaceous, then I might be more easily convinced.