Julie, From my enviromental economics class we learnt that global warming is becoming one of the major threats to our survival in this planet thats why we should come up with ways reduce it. I have come across this article in the web that i would like to share with other members: The mainstream scientific consensus on global warming is becoming clearer and more compelling every day: changes in our climate are real and are under way. Now. But we can do something about it. The evidence that human-induced global warming is real cannot be ignored. Consider: Since the beginning of the 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 1.1°F (0.6°C). Over the last 40 years, which is the period with the most reliable data, the temperature increased by about 0.5°F (0.2-0.3°C). Warming in the 20th century is greater than at any time during the past 400 to 600 years. Seven of the 10 warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s. In fact, the hottest year since reliable instrumental temperature measurements began was 1998, when global temperatures spiked due to one of the strongest El Niños on record. In addition, changes in the natural environment support the evidence from temperature records. Mountain glaciers the world over are receding. The Arctic ice pack has lost about 40 percent of its thickness over the past four decades. Global sea level is rising about three times faster over the past 100 years compared with the previous 3,000 years. A growing number of studies show plants and animals changing their range and behavior in response to shifts in climate causing serious disruptions to our environment and lives As Earth continues to warm, there is a growing risk that the climate will change in ways that will seriously disrupt our lives. While on average the globe will get warmer and receive more precipitation, individual regions will experience different climatic changes, with different consequences for the local environment. Among the most severe are:a faster rise in sea level;more heat waves and droughts, resulting in more and more conflicts over water resources;more extreme weather events, producing floods and property destruction; and a greater potential for heat-related illnesses and deaths, as well as the wider spread of infectious diseases carried by insects and rodents into areas previously free from them. If climatic trends continue unabated, global warming will threaten our health, cities, farms and forests, beaches and wetlands, and other natural habitats.

I am all for global awareness of environmental issues. Clean air, safe water, having water at all, not poluting the face of the earth, keeping forrests where they are needed, to prevent mountains from becoming rockfaces etc. But I am also aware of the results of investigations, that tell us that climate changes have been a big thing in the past, way befor the 200 years or so of our industrial revolution.

That sayd, around 200 years ago a MINI ICEAGE came to an end. Earths climat began to warm up, ice in mountains began to melt, and now evidence is reveiled from dead trees that are comming to the survace now in the Alps (Europe), that trees were growing once, where thick icecaps (Glaciers) were showing 50 years ago. Meaning a totally different climat all together. Also meaning, a natural change of the climat. One that we didnot control at all, because we were not even in those regions when those forrests were there.

It is very good to march for a better distribution of our resorces, meaning use and reuse, preventing polution. But it is not a good idea, to tell people that between the time of our death (in 50 years?) and the time of our grandchildrens death (125 years from now?) the world will be unfit to live in.

My country will be one of the lands to suffer higher sealevels, when Greenland looses its icecaps, but Greenland has lost its icecaps befor, the Northpole has been without ice befor, land has been covered by oceans and lakes befor. Those are natural phenomena. Just because we have outgrown our welcome on parts of this world, it does not mean we now suddenly have to control the changes of the climat on this planet. Our resorses and energy should be used in making the harsher parts of the world fit to live in. By using the technology we have today (solar panels, etc) to get access to the most basic needs for people and animals.

Yes, we are making a difference to the climat on earth, but as long as all major companies on this planet, including the companies that START UP in socalled Third World countries are only about gaining huge bankaccounts for the members of the boards, no march how real or virtual it is, will make a difference.

By the way: Do you know what Kyoto means????

Your President is all talk, small cash handouts and big wars, but never keeping an ear to the ground where communities are concerned.

Read this: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002322069_kyoto10m.html and then think again. No amount of marching will do any good, especially virtual marches, then you President and his people keep their blinders on and refuge to look at the world and its needs.

Anna

I have just come across this article i want to share."global warming what can be done?"

Replace coal, oil and natural gas plants for generating electricity by nuclear plants. Replacing coal burning plants should get the highest priority, because they generate the most CO2 per unit of energy generated, and because their emissions cause substantial lung damage. (It is interesting that some the proposers of "carbon taxes", both in America and Europe, want to include nuclear energy as a target of the "carbon tax". There is clearly more on the agenda than global warming.) Solar energy in various forms would also work, but it seems to be very costly in spite of the best efforts of its advocates.

Unfortunately, generating electricity without putting CO2 into the atmosphere probably wouldn't be enough if the global warming problem is serious. The next step is to use nuclear produced electricity for space heating and other direct uses of heat.

The most difficult step is to use electricity for automotive transportation. In spite of very vigorous research, batteries capable of giving electric cars reasonable range have not been developed, although there seems to be no law of nature making them impossible. Here's a scheme that would ameliorate the problem even if lead-acid batteries had to be used.

Another approach is to use hydrogen generated by splitting water with (say) nuclear electricity. Cars powered by liquid hydrogen have the potential of matching the performance of gasoline powered vehicles. The hydrogen tanks will need three times the internal volume of gasoline tanks and still greater external size because of the insulation required. BMW has demonstrated a liquid hydrogen powered internal combustion engine car. Schemes for using hydrogen in other forms than liquid are unlikely to have the required range. See the page on hydrogen for more details. Some people seem to believe that using hydrogen gets more energy. It only provides a way of using nuclear or solar energy. Apart from its possible use to reduce global warming, hydrogen it likely to be the solution for personal transportation when petroleum runs short.

Rather than putting all the effort into reducing carbon emissions, it may be more cost-effective to put some effort into removing more CO2 from the atmosphere. Plants remove CO2, but only while they are growing. A climax forest may be in equilibrium; apparently the exact facts are not yet known. What will surely work is to cut down forests, not burn the wood and replant the forests with fast growing trees. When these trees reach a size at which their growth slows, they would be cut again. Back in the carboniferous era, trees fell into swamps which evidently provided a reducing environment. The oxygen and hydrogen in the wood were re-emitted into the atmosphere, and the carbon became coal. This process will work for us too (to reduce CO2 (it takes too long to make coal) if it proves necessary. Canada and Siberia have large forest areas not being used for other purposes.

Perhaps Brazil might be persuaded that the trees being cut down in the Amazon to make more farmland should not be burned. Persuading them of that is likely to be easier than persuading them to forgo the farmland

http://www.claybennett.com

Frank, I was under the impression that Brasil is one of the few countries that is using White Coal for energy, they have build countless special dams for that purpose. And the slashing of the Rainforrest, we are told, is done to sell the wood for the industry, not to burn.

What you have said is true they are brasil is using white coal for energy but their major reason of cutting down their forest is to clear land for cultivation not for industrial purposes.This can clearly be seen by the fact that they are not doing afforestation they are just cutting down the forest. AJVandeAak said:

Frank, I was under the impression that Brasil is one of the few countries that is using White Coal for energy, they have build countless special dams for that purpose. And the slashing of the Rainforrest, we are told, is done to sell the wood for the industry, not to burn.

Dear Frank: If you look at all the rainforrests all over the planet, you will see that the trees are cut down, put on huge trucks that are driving accross purpose build roads. The roads end at a trainstation, where the trees are transported by the thousands to factories that produce things with them. There simply are not enough people living inside the rainforrests to justify what you sayd.

It's the (mostly forreighn) Loggingcompanies that cut down the forrests. And the Conglomarates that give us SOY.

Read the links below, in one of them you will find out more about these figures:

The Brazilian Justice issued warrants of arrest for 89 people - including IBAMA (the Brazilian Environmental Agency) agents and loggers, who are responsible for 1,9 million cubic meters of timber illegally exploited in the Amazon. This volume could be loaded into 76,000 trucks, which would cover the distance between Rio de Janeiro and Brasilia.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/brazilian-federal-police

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/amazon-destruction

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/second-largest-rate-of-amazon

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/police-operative-in-the-amazon

But not all the problems are in the South, read following as well:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/forests/north-america

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/forests/our-disappearing-forests

When you tackle problems, you will have to come up with solutions. Here are some:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/forests/solutions

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/uk-publisher-mqp-goes-ancient

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/2m-hectares-of-amazon-saved

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/victory-for-the-amazon-its-pe

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/cites-survival-hangs-from-thr

Over to you.

Dear friends, In the closing years of my short life (well, I'm aiming for 83 but at 58 one never knows) ... I've written a blog commentary to challenge the current thinking about climate change and global warming. After you read essay by "Charles C. Commons" (aka yours truly), I'd love to hear your POV on all this. Remember, a big report on climate change is coming February 2 and will be released in four parts over the next year. Sincerely, Danny Bloom, reporter, Taiwan aka Charles C. Commons http://climatechange3000.blogspot.com

"We have 15-30 more human generations of family life left," writes blogger Charles C. Commons at http://climatechange3000.blogspot.com Commons, not well-known in the academic world nor even a published environmentalist author, has nevertheless delivered a dark, bleak message about climate change and global warming. Critics have already called his blog a "dire vision of the future due to global warming," while others have dismissed his blog as the ravings of a lunatic who is out of touch with reality. Commons says he begs to differ. "I am not the one who is out of touch with reality,' he said in a recent email inteview with this reporter. "Humankind is on its last ropes, give it just 500 more years or so, 1000 at most. We are done for. By our own hand. This has nothing to do with God or theology. We have done this to ourselves." Commons, a 58 year old philosopher who says that he is basically an optimist and has always lived his life that way, claims that any realistic examination of the climate change issues point in only one direction: "Humankind as a species is doomed," he says. When asked what is the point of writing such a bleak commentary, Commons said in a wide-ranging inteview: "While the end will definitely come by the year 2500 or 3000, what we must start doing now is planning for this end. There is nothing we can do about climate change, it is already too late. Of course, governments won't admit that, their job is to ensure the safety of their citizens in the short term, but any thinker worth his or her salt will tell you, we are done for as a species and it is now too late to change things around. We will be fried. The Earth will continue, some animal species might live on, some bacteria and micro-organisms, but humans will not be in the picture anymore. We need to start thinking seriously about this. We are at the end of human existence." On his blog, titled "People Get What They Deserve: Climate Change and the End of Humankind," Commons writes: "The end of humankind's time on Earth is coming to an end, and I welcome it. I can't believe I wrote that, but I did. Let me explain." He adds: "God knows, we've messed things up real bad, here on Planet Earth, and now it's time to pay the piper. Oh, it's not going to end in a nuclear armageddon, no. And it's not going to end because of the so-called "Clash of Civilizations" going on now with our friends the terrorists. No, the end is coming because of climate change, and it's too late to do anything about it now. Way too late. Our fate has been sealed. I should be in despair but I am not. I think we are getting what we deserve. We did our best, as a human species, but our best was not very good. We blew it. Climate change, according to the Stern Report, has already pretty much made it impossible -- read that word again: "impossible" -- to tackle global warming. We are done for. We are about to be fried, frozen, fingered. Put that in your computer file. As a species, we are done for. Period. And while I don'tdespair over this, neither am I gloating, no. We are headed for extinction, and you know something, we deserve it. We sealed our own fate by our foolish, greedy, convenience-addicted actions. Maybe it was in our genes from the very beginning, this coming demise. Maybe all this was meant to be, not some non-existant god or Creator Being, but by the fickle hands of fate itself. [If there really was a God, we wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place. Think about it. We did this all by ourselves. There's no use crying over spilled milk. We're done for.] Oh, it won't happen soon, not in this lifetime, not in my lifetime or your lifetime. Give us 15 or 20 more human generations, 30 at most, and then it's curtains. The Earth will be fried. The die is already cast, it's in the cards. There's no going back. As human carbon emissions continue to grow and grow, the rate of climate change will accelerate and we will experience it sooner than you can imagine. You think life is forever. It is not. Human life is about to be deleted from the surface of Planet Earth. I give it about 500 years. Stretch it to 1000 years if you wish, and that's okay with me. This is not an exact science. But it is science. We are done for. The simple fact, the truth, is that we are headed for the exit ramp. Our rise as a species on Earth in a long, long history of cosmic time and Darwinian evolution has been capped. And we did it to ourselves. Us. You and me. Cars. Airplanes. Factories. Coal plants. Massive industrialization. Oil. Technology. Convenience. Greed. We couldn't stop. Our DNA, our intelligence, did us in. It's over. By the year 2500 -- okay, the year 3000 at the latest --we're history. And you know what? It doesn't matter. Not one bit. The cosmos does not care one iota. We came, we saw, we're leaving. Let me put it this way: the Earth's experiment with the human species and most of the planet and animal species that evolved even before us is coming to an end. And we humans did it. We pulled the levers, we pushed the buttons, we pulled the triggers. We burned too much coal, we guzzled too much gasoline, we used too much oil, we made too many factories to make our toys and vehicles, too many motorscooters, too many cars, too many smokestacks, too many people. We just didn't know how to rein things in. And now it's too late. Greedy, hungry for entertainment and travel and technology, we did it ourselves, to ourselves. The rest, now, will be a long slow decline into annihilation of our species by unstoppable global warming and climate change. You might say this is depressing. I say it's reality, and we need to face reality. And start planning for the end. That is where our enterprise should go now: planning for the end of the human species. So goodbye Human Civilization, Human Science, Human Evolution, Human Dreaming. No more Magna Carta, no more Beethoven or Mozart or Snoopy Dogg or J-Z, no more cellphones, no more PDAs, no more United Nations, no more blogging, no more cars, no more churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, shrines. Human life is soon to be a lost chapter in the Cosmos. Because of global warming and climate change. Goodbye Humankind, it all its storied and multicolored and multisplendored variety! Ten billion people will soon be zero people. There will be no one left alive. There will not be one man standing. The Earth will be devoid of all human life, and most animal life and plant life as well. But some bacteria and slime will remain and continue... You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way climate change is taking us. It is taking us to our end as a species. In a way, it makes sense. We did it to ourselves. We did it ourselves. We dug our own hole, while trying to build a towering temple to the sky. It's okay. We had our chance. But we couldn't curb our appetites. Born from the swamps, we shall return to the swamps. Evolved from the void, we will return to the void. One might call it poetic justice. Celestial justice. Everlasting justice. Star life. We came out of nothing, and we will return to nothing. Blame it on our genes, our sharp minds, our penetrating intelligence and human brains. We are done for. Even as you read these words, the planet's millions of engines, small and large, household and industrial, are purring, revving, singing their song -- and spewing CO2 emissions into the very atmosphere that sustains us, the very atmosphere that is now hastening our demise. At this very moment -- NOW! -- highways around the world are clogged, smokestacks are belching, gasoline is being guzzled, oil is being burned. Even as you read these words, it is too late. Too late. Too late."

for everything there is a season....maybe its the end of the human season this time round, maybe not....but whatever the path taken by the earth mother, it will survive till the sun eats it up. if we are still around then, we will surely be gonners then. hey, we will be gonners whichever way you look at it, lol....the key is to live gently upon this earth and with all your neighbors. maybe our bodies will be crispy critturs, but who is to say that our souls will evaporate? our souls our 'sentience' our spirit??? live gently and with honor, thats all any of us can do. help whenever you can, and keep your corner of the neighborhood clean. if more of us lived this way then we would have a thriving planet.

exactly, nora

Actually, I believe one of 4 outcomes will be apparent in under 3 generations but we have 5 years and counting to irrevocably impact where we go. We are pretty certain we can unite milions of Londoners in voting to select the best of outcomes; can your citizens group join us?

CHOICE 1 dinosaurs end the world; they do by never questioning big gets bigger; they let their democracy system get taken over by huge financial/vested interests; their president becomes the 21st C equivalent of Kaiser Wilhelm; but in this century world wars hasten the end of all of us

CHOICE 2 sharks: in this world about 1 billion survive; most enslaved by those who smell the blook of how to make a finacial killing from many a mile

CHOICE 3 butterflies; tell tales of how wings flapped in the amazon impact those on the other side of the world; the wrong system transormation story because we are not connected by every risk but need maps of which ones we are; this scenario leads us back to the cave age; probaly 1 billion survive in it but not in those parts of the world now most populated

CHOICE 4 or, and this is where we desperately seek an attractive icon (call it LionChild like Nania) until you give us a better one; if we collaborate as 6 billion beings, there is so much clean energy out there and we can end the carbon exhaustion folly in time if we transform; including every grassroots locality in the way we go forward however incovenient this is for dinosaurs like Exxon who globalise the wrong way round for sustainability

One view of global warming is shaped by the concept of ice ages. The past ten ice ages have been cycling at exactly 100 thousand year intervals, and the next one is scheduled to begin now. Now means within the next few centuries. Ice ages are always preceded by global warming, which particularly means an increase in ocean temperatures. Ocean temperatures are much more significant that air temperature. The oceans are said to have a heat capacity of 1,000 times that of the atmosphere. This means oceans greatly influence air temperature, but air does not easily influence ocean temperature.

Here's a graph of ocean temperature over the past few ice age cycles. It shows an increase in ocean temperatures of about 6°C before the temperature reversal of each ice age. The present ocean temperature is only 0.2°C lower than the peak at the beginning of the last ice age. The importance of this fact is that it overrides nearly every other fact about global warming. Regardless of what humans do, there is going to be a precipitous cool-down within the next few centuries. Humans have no ability to influence ice age cycles.

Warmer oceans mean increased global precipitation, which has been quite noticeable for about 30 years. Ice melting around the Arctic has resulted in milder winters throughout the U.S. The increased rainfall and longer growing season has extended the corn belt westward into the plains resulting in bumper harvests of corn and soybeans.

There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. The claim that it does is based upon the simplistic fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation better than nitrogen and oxygen do. But CO2 absorbs to extinction in about 10 meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance slightly, while convectional currents mix it around and remove any relevance for short distances. To rationalize the distance effect, propagandists claim that shorter distances result in more cycles of absorption and emission being required for the energy to get into outer space. That logic is not valid, because the absorption of infrared radiation is followed by instantaneous conversion into heat. The heat is distributed to the nitrogen and oxygen stopping the cycles after the first one near the earth's surface. This means that more CO2 does not result in more heat in the atmosphere, regardless of how much heat the first 10 parts per million added.

On top of that, humans cannot influence the amount of CO2 in the air, because oceans regulate it to the most minute degree. Carbon dioxide is highly soluble in water, which means it establishes an equilibrium between the amount in the air and the amount in the oceans. Warmer oceans release more, as do salty oceans. Therefore, the amount of CO2 in the air tracks with ocean temperatures. This is why CO2 levels follow "global" temperatures during an ice age, not because CO2 creates the result. As a demonstration of this, measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere show a slight increase when an El Nino is heating the Pacific Ocean, and the measurements normalize when the El Nino disappears.

If oceans were not regulating, there would not be a definable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Compare it to a warehouse containing a product. There doesn't have to be any relationship between the amount of product in the warehouse and the amount being manufactured. Considering the huge amount of CO2 in the oceans, if regulation were not occurring, there would be so much in the air that life would be impossible.

More details on this web site here:

http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

Martín Rizzi * Mexico said:

One view of global warming is shaped by the concept of ice ages. The past ten ice ages have been cycling at exactly 100 thousand year intervals,.."

Since I made the mistake of giving this post 5 points, I had to comment on it. Although I'm happy to give Martin points for his efforts, this particular posting, which is taken from Gary Novak's site, called Science Criticism, is mostly nonsense. There are many parts that appear to be correct, but taken on the whole, Novak misleads rather than informs.

Novak seems to be a rather unbalanced individual, or at least a particularly kooky one, who finds various oddities within science and therefore concludes (apparently) that broad areas of science are simply wrong. This would be presumptuous for any individual, but Novak, who isn't affiliated with any university or other scientific organization from what I can find on him, takes on fields outside his rather limited expertise (he has a Master's degree in biology and does "independent research" on mushrooms).

So, in conclusion, take Novak's treatment of the subject of global warming with an extremely large grain of salt.

Here are some sites on the subject of global warming:

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/index.htm

diverse academic opinions on subject - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/

".. and the next one is scheduled to begin now. Now means within the next few centuries. Ice ages are always preceded by global warming, which particularly means an increase in ocean temperatures. Ocean temperatures are much more significant that air temperature. The oceans are said to have a heat capacity of 1,000 times that of the atmosphere. This means oceans greatly influence air temperature, but air does not easily influence ocean temperature.

Here's a graph of ocean temperature over the past few ice age cycles. It shows an increase in ocean temperatures of about 6°C before the temperature reversal of each ice age. The present ocean temperature is only 0.2°C lower than the peak at the beginning of the last ice age. The importance of this fact is that it overrides nearly every other fact about global warming. Regardless of what humans do, there is going to be a precipitous cool-down within the next few centuries. Humans have no ability to influence ice age cycles.

Warmer oceans mean increased global precipitation, which has been quite noticeable for about 30 years. Ice melting around the Arctic has resulted in milder winters throughout the U.S. The increased rainfall and longer growing season has extended the corn belt westward into the plains resulting in bumper harvests of corn and soybeans.

There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. The claim that it does is based upon the simplistic fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation better than nitrogen and oxygen do. But CO2 absorbs to extinction in about 10 meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance slightly, while convectional currents mix it around and remove any relevance for short distances. To rationalize the distance effect, propagandists claim that shorter distances result in more cycles of absorption and emission being required for the energy to get into outer space. That logic is not valid, because the absorption of infrared radiation is followed by instantaneous conversion into heat. The heat is distributed to the nitrogen and oxygen stopping the cycles after the first one near the earth's surface. This means that more CO2 does not result in more heat in the atmosphere, regardless of how much heat the first 10 parts per million added.

On top of that, humans cannot influence the amount of CO2 in the air, because oceans regulate it to the most minute degree. Carbon dioxide is highly soluble in water, which means it establishes an equilibrium between the amount in the air and the amount in the oceans. Warmer oceans release more, as do salty oceans. Therefore, the amount of CO2 in the air tracks with ocean temperatures. This is why CO2 levels follow "global" temperatures during an ice age, not because CO2 creates the result. As a demonstration of this, measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere show a slight increase when an El Nino is heating the Pacific Ocean, and the measurements normalize when the El Nino disappears.

If oceans were not regulating, there would not be a definable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Compare it to a warehouse containing a product. There doesn't have to be any relationship between the amount of product in the warehouse and the amount being manufactured. Considering the huge amount of CO2 in the oceans, if regulation were not occurring, there would be so much in the air that life would be impossible.

More details on this web site here:

http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

Whether "the Global Warming threat" is a product of classical

scientific method or whether Global Warming is another spoof

like the "Y2K threat" is still an open question in my mind.

Angloamerican scientific institutions are probably just as

corrupt and decadent as other sectors of the society

in this our benighted home times, in these modern Dark Ages?¿

From my admittedly unenlightened perspective "Global Warming threat"

strikes me, like "Terrorism", as a mainstream meme, designed to take

economic development for the third world altogether OFF THE TABLE

by making industry subject to gloablist regulation and intervention.

[source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007: Analysis and Summary by Christopher Monckton, February 2007 www.scienceand policy.org]

An analysis of the IPCC report by Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley and former special adivser to the Thatcher government, notes that the figures in the final draft of the United Nations report show that the previous report, in 2001, had overstimated the human influence on climate by at least one-third.

The 2007 IPCC report has more than halved its high-end estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. The new report also reduces the estimated amount of solar radiation attributable to greenhouse gases ("radiative forcing') by more than one-third, from 2.43 to 1.6 watts per square meter.

"It now thinks pollutant particles reflecting sunlight back to space have a very strong cooling effect," writes Brenchley.

The IPCC's claimed increase in global temperature over the five years from 2001 to 2006 amounts to 0.03 [!] degrees Celsius--less than the possible measurement error.

Other dissonances noted:

--Computer models, on which the UN relied heavily, did not predict the considerable cooling of the oceans that has occurred since 2003.

--The rate of increase in sea level has changed little in 80 years.

--The IPCC claims the average rate of warming over the last 50 years (0.13C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. Brenchley notes: "The UN only obtains this result because between 1940 and 1975, temperature fell. In fact, between 1910 and 1930, the average rate of warming also was 0.13C."

--The IPCC claims mountain glaciers and snow have declined. But mountain glaciers account for less than 5% of the world's ice. Ice mass in Greenland and Antactica (95% of the world total) has grown in the past 30 years. The Greenland ice sheet added an average of 2 inches of thickness per year from 1993 to 2003.

--The IPCC claims Arctic temperatures rose twice as fast as the global average since 1905, while admitting that a warm period was observed from 1925 to 1945. However, the 1925-45 Arctic warm period was actually warmer than the present by as much as one degree Celsius.

--There was almost certainly less Arctic sea ice in the early 1940s than there is now, and there may have been none in the Summer in the Middle Ages.

As to longer-term "warming," Brenchley writes: "The 2007 draft concludes that it is very likely that we [humans] caused most of the rise in temperatures since 1940. It does not point out that for half that period, from 1940 to 1975, temperature actually fell, even though carbon dioxide rose monotonically --higher every year than the previous year."

25 years of hosting open debates on photosynthesis http://futurehistory.jp convince me that global warming is no spoof; it is one of the 7 exponential ways http://worldcitizen.tv that globalisation can destruct the world if we follow the 1000 biggest organisations in teh world that have no measurable or goverance capability whatsoever to integrate local societies and diversity flows up

for those who dont believe in plain common sense as evidence you have HM treasury's report http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Independent_Reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

COLLABORATION KNOWLEDGE CITY :now for many years know Londoners have been working at the intercity level of collaboration;

so what we are launching now is a 5 year open flow program: Passports to Sustainability http://passports.jp

if you want to be a city where citizens openly question what to do about climate (and biomass network maps are not just warming but clean water, clean food, clean energy, clean air) then imagine with us te biggest meeting you can host out of your city in the next 5 years and link it to our passports program

London commits tos strat this off this spring; reason since Sir Nick Stern has got the UK government to invest 1% of our n ational economy in new approaches to energy to save 20% of our economy, we citizens better make sure that it is wholly new in vestment and not just Exxon or Enron rebadged? then at the start of London's olympic year 0012 we will colate together every Q&A that collaboration cities hav e shared with us in a worldwide debrief from which everyone can judge - are there erasons to celebrate a n ew sustainability and if not why on earth is London hosting the bigegst spectators sports on earthg in a year when Stern's maths (ansent of trurnround) will be verging on Gore's irreversible stage; eg probably invest 10% of national economies to save 50% -because mathematically that is how fast expoentials slump http://worldeconomist.net -call this Stern's law and digest with more attention than moore's law

questions, collaboration ideas welcome : info@worldcitizen.tv

Martín Rizzi * Mexico said:

Whether "the Global Warming threat" is a product of classical

scientific method or whether Global Warming is another spoof

like the "Y2K threat" is still an open question in my mind.

Angloamerican scientific institutions are probably just as

corrupt and decadent as other sectors of the society

in this our benighted home times, in these modern Dark Ages?¿

From my admittedly unenlightened perspective "Global Warming threat"

strikes me, like "Terrorism", as a mainstream meme, designed to take

economic development for the third world altogether OFF THE TABLE

by making industry subject to globalist regulation and intervention.

Evidence of global warming is hard to refute at this point -- notwithstanding contrary evidence which may or may not be valid, or merely complicate the scenario. (NOTE: Global dimming, which is also occurring, is one of the odd side effects, without which warming would be even more dramatic.)

The debunking (?) of global warming, which is part of the Republican war on science, appears to be motivated by the specter of implied solutions to the problem, which would would require economic costs as well as changes in business practices. Representative James Imhofe (R - OK), a leading proponent of the argument that global warming is a hoax, receives the largest portion of his campaign donations from the oil and gas industry, whom, presumably, would be affected by solutions to the problem of warming. [I'm in the process of reading Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science, but I will have to reserve comment on it until I read more.]

Much like the oil and gas industry, the lesser-developed countries are concerned that Kyoto-like treaties will curtail their economic development, specifically the countries who have yet to enjoy the benefits of economic development, which seems unfair since those countries are not the source of the problem.

I think it's more likely that the current producers of greenhouse gases will be affected by measures to reduce the output of same, since their contribution to the problem is actual rather than potential.

I also reject the idea that development must invariably be hurt by the 'greening' of production. Pollution is a prototypical example of a negative economic externality, and as such entails producing costs for those who don't share in the benefit of the activity. Curtailing unsustainable development has an economic benefit that people tend to underestimate.

well maybe i am slow, tell me again how the global warming

thing works, maybe i just cant get past the fact that G.W.

seems to be a made-to-order format for globalist regulation

of local industry by imposing an extra-national legal status;

if global warming is such a problem why dont you just fix it

why do we have to know about it when economic development is

what the people want and there is no room left to mention it

between the War on Terrorism, and the Global Warming Crisis.

Martín Rizzi * Mexico said:

well maybe i am slow, tell me again how the global warming

thing works, ... ."

This link, which was posted in my earlier post, does a pretty good job of explaining the phenomenon, as well as providing links to other information sources.

with all respect, good brother Colin, it is this very notion

that scientific propositions can be proven with information

that i cant relate to. my thinking i guess you one would say classical

i am more of the old school, that of Pythagoras and Plato and Kepler,.

In "Misterium Cosmograficum", published at the age of 23 years old,

Kepler demonstrates his truly revolutionary hypotheses regarding planetary motion.

His hypotheses have actually born up extremely well - to say the least!

Keplers discovery and intelligible representation of new universal principles

is powerfully articulated in the Forward and in Chapters One and Two.

(i have the recommendable Abaris Books edition with original German and English translation.)

Kepler did NOT attempt to prove his amazing discovery with information!

In the forward, and first two chapters of Misterium Cosmograficum,

Kepler proffers very little of what one might term "information",

Kepler was able to describe where a planet will be a future time,

yet Kepler did not ever report to statistical methods as the heart

of his thesis. Yes Kepler used Tycho Brah's astronomical readings.

But that was all! Kepler never discovered new physical principles

by number-crunching; classical science to me is Pythagorean in nature

not a politicized pidgeonholing point-to-point ivory tower blackboard.

Please forgive if i have offended anybody, as i do not mean to; it does

not bother me that other people believe in the Global Warming theory.

I am not going to try to convince anyone to not believe in it either.

if the atmosphere is broken, fix it; what does this issue have to do

with the third world? WHY is the corporate mass-media bombarding

the third world population with dire warnings about global warming?

even bush is now for it so stop talking already and go and fix it;

if someone feels bad about having broken the atmosphere, just fix it.

In my experience the only way to really get anything done is to do it.

Corrupt politicians appointed by corrupt mass media appointing corrupt

commitees to regulate industry around the world. That extranational order

is to fix the atmosphere?; if you are going to ever be able to fix the atmosphere

(if it is really broken) you must apply a lot of real scientists and engineers.

Talking about it has never solved any problem i ever knew of. Sooner

or later somebody has to do something to begin to address the problem.

If this IS an atmosphere envelope problem and the angloamerican society is more determined to fix it

than it is to address the acute economic conditions that reign throughout the third world,

then let the 3w work out its own solutions and just leave us out of it

while you would go on to address the Global Warming crisis in the real world

with an FDR-style legions of classically trained young scientists and engineers,

not politicians from cynical old families with slick public relations staff.

Maybe i am missing something... of course i am.... now what is it?

i'm not saying this is any kind of last word it is just my thinking ok

Remember, i live in the mountains of Guerrero for the past many years.

I think the first answer to martin is most eloquently given by Larry Brilliant http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/11645.rm ; this video explains why he used to believe there was only a top 3 problems : end war, empower end poverty, end plagues and other connection risks spreadinng but now includes climate for 2 reasons:

1 it interconnects the first three; 2 it would be sad if Yunus saved Bangladesh from poverty only to see it washed away; by almost any projection, Bangladesh will be the first place to be drowned if we go up by another degree or 2

2 I think the second answer to Martin is that climate is a challenge that will only be ersolved if the world unites from the grassroots up, an d moreover that at least in london the world's nosiest economist Sir Nick Stern and noisest entrepreneur use almsot identical maps to help people see all tehse connections; the longer story on the revolution needed to economics before leaders at the top of the world's 1000 ivory tower noardrooms or white houses come and look at life critical innovation the way most people do is over here

chris macrae said:

I think the first answer to martin is most eloquently given by Larry Brilliant http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/11645.rm ; this video explains why he used to believe there was only a top 3 problems : end war, empower end poverty, end plagues and other connection risks spreadinng but now includes climate for 2 reasons:

1 it interconnects the first three; 2 it would be sad if Yunus saved Bangladesh from poverty only to see it washed away; by almost any projection, Bangladesh will be the first place to be drowned if we go up by another degree or 2

2 I think the second answer to Martin is that climate is a challenge that will only be ersolved if the world unites from the grassroots up, an d moreover that at least in london the world's nosiest economist Sir Nick Stern and noisest entrepreneur use almsot identical maps to help people see all tehse connections; the longer story on the revolution needed to economics before leaders at the top of the world's 1000 ivory tower noardrooms or white houses come and look at life critical innovation the way most people do is over here

The framing of problems frequently tends to obscure the extent to which problems overlap or are connected.

A well known problem (well known within International Studies) is the problem of population growth -- specifically in the third world. Rather than presume that only Malthusian remedies can solve the problem, it behooves us to take a closer look at the nature of the problem. Analysis of this problem has revealed the linkage between poverty and high birth rates, leading to the revelation that birth rates were somehow the result of poverty. As it turns out, having more babies was an advantageous strategy for women who had no social safety net to protect them in times of illness or in old age.

Frequently, analysis of this problem assumed that it was intractable, since delegating further resources to the third world would -- purportedly -- only exacerbate the problem. But, quite to the contrary, impoverished conditions, and related social, political and economic problems, were producing the problem of population growth. Moreover, steps to alleviate impoverished conditions led to a lower birthrate -- which contradicted predictions made with the standard Malthusian model.

This story would be important enough if all it revealed was the connection between poverty and high birth rates, but there's even more. Both war and plague flow from the impoverished conditions that were formerly presumed to be separate and distinct problems. The political inequality present in third world countries was -- generally speaking -- leading to armed conflict, depressed economic conditions, and exploitive and unsustainable development, in turn leading to higher birthrates and conditions leading to disease and epidemic.

Despite the seeming magic bullet here, it's not as if the political inequalities and exploitive economic conditions don't serve someone's interests. Resolving this global collective action problem requires that people forgo the narrow, short term advantages that currently enrich them. What could be good for everyone, potentially, isn't necessarily good for a privileged few.

Colin James Cameron said:

chris macrae said:

I think the first answer to martin is most eloquently given by Larry Brilliant http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/11645.rm ; this video explains why he used to believe there was only a top 3 problems : end war, empower end poverty, end plagues and other connection risks spreadinng but now includes climate for 2 reasons:

1 it interconnects the first three; 2 it would be sad if Yunus saved Bangladesh from poverty only to see it washed away; by almost any projection, Bangladesh will be the first place to be drowned if we go up by another degree or 2

Are the plagues and famines welcomed by Malthus NOT enough now to take care of the "overpopulation problem"?¡¿ some bigger, updated deux ex machinas are still needed?

"Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits ... we should ...crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. ... But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased from 1 in 36 or 40, to 1 in 18 or 20, we might possibly every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely starved." -- Thomas Malthus, The Essay on Population, 5th edition, 1817.

2 I think the second answer to Martin is that climate is a challenge that will only be ersolved if the world unites from the grassroots up, an d moreover that at least in london the world's nosiest economist Sir Nick Stern and noisest entrepreneur use almsot identical maps to help people see all tehse connections;.....

A well known problem (well known within International Studies) is the problem of population growth -- specifically in the third world. Rather than presume that only Malthusian remedies can solve the problem, it behooves us to take a closer look at the nature of the problem.

"The world's fishermen and farmers can no longer assume the principal responsibility for achieving an acceptable balance between food and people. This responsibility may now lie with family planners." --Lester R. Brown Nov. 1, 1996

"Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production.... Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now. Would food be considered an instrument of national power? ... Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth?"--U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger U.S. National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 Dec. 10, 1974

"C. Political Causes: 16. Depriving people of food has been used throughout history and is still used today as a political or military weapon. In some cases, this is a veritable crime against humanity." --From World Hunger Pontifical Council "Cor Unum"Oct. 24, 1996 [ 2 ]

"Socialism, especially international socialism, is only possible as a stable system if the population is stationary or nearly so.... The white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence.... Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary." --Bertrand Russell, The Prospects of Industrial Civilization (1923) [ 3 ]

"Yet millions of people are still marked by the ravages of hunger and malnutrition or the consequences of food insecurity. Is this due to a lack of food? Not at all! It is generally acknowledged that the resources of the planet, taken as a whole, are sufficient to feed everyone living on it."--From World HungerPontifical Council "Cor Unum" Oct. 24, 1996 [ 4 ]

"(A) Murder and Ill-Treatment of Civilian Populations of or in Occupied Territory and on the High Seas ...The murders and ill-treatment were carried out by divers means, including shooting, hanging, gassing, starvation, gross overcrowding, systematic under-nutrition, systematic imposition of labor tasks beyond the strength of those ordered to carry them out, inadequate provision of surgical and medical services...." --From prosecution documents presented at the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany [ 5 ]

"Whatever proportions these [Nazi] crimes assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in basic attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from hich this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitatable sick." --Dr. Leo Alexander Expert Advisor to the Nuremberg Tribunal July 14, 1949

Analysis of this problem has revealed the linkage between poverty and high birth rates, leading to the revelation that birth rates were somehow the result of poverty. As it turns out, having more babies was an advantageous strategy for women who had no social safety net to protect them in times of illness or in old age.

History demonstrates that any society which governs itself according to a Malthusian principle of "free trade," can exist only as a parasite, a virtual cannibal, as the Nineteenth Century British Empire did, and is thus morally unfit to survive. Mechanistic theories attributing bestial motives to third world women are quite beside the point.

CJC. said: Frequently, analysis of this problem assumed that it was intractable, since delegating further resources to the third world would -- purportedly -- only exacerbate the problem. But, quite to the contrary, impoverished conditions, and related social, political and economic problems, were producing the problem of population growth. Moreover, steps to alleviate impoverished conditions led to a lower birthrate -- which contradicted predictions made with the standard Malthusian model.

CJCsaid: This story would be important enough if all it revealed was the connection between poverty and high birth rates, but there's even more. Both war and plague flow from the impoverished conditions that were formerly presumed to be separate and distinct problems. The political inequality present in third world countries was -- generally speaking -- leading to armed conflict, depressed economic conditions, and exploitive and unsustainable development, in turn leading to higher birthrates and conditions leading to disease and epidemic.

CJC said: Despite the seeming magic bullet here, it's not as if the political inequalities and exploitive economic conditions don't serve someone's interests. Resolving this global collective action problem requires that people forgo the narrow, short term advantages that currently enrich them. What could be good for everyone, potentially, isn't necessarily good for a privileged few.

if chris McR is me - I did not say any of those paras, I think CHC did

Something that staggers me is that it should be obvious that unlike history we are order of magnitudes more connected by various apsect of networks; to be prepared for this we need an increased understanding of systems and system interfaces and flows; this should be in school currcula, but it is not; we need less boxed in thinking but the way the spreadsheet has been used since its invention has advanced a boxed-in organsiational world; we have made ourselves dumber to flows and network dynamics at a time when risk reduction would suggest we needed to get smarter

worse a lot of so called system theories and stories do not hold true in simple mapping tests; take for example the dumbing down way the story of an amazon butterfly flapping its wings is usually told...

Do-It-Yourself Global Warming Kit Now Available

http://www.likelynet.com/?gclid=CJ6nw7-GsooCFQi8YAodCyWCDA