Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

I looked again. What I said:<br><br>It is logical that humans are contributing to GW. It has been demonstrated that there is a warming trend.<br><br>Prudent measures are wise to reduce GH gasses and other environmental degradation. (end of my quotes)<br><br>Check the 2005 (is there a newer report?) National Academy of Sciences and EPA sites on GW. Lots of assumptions and models. Are these sources unacceptable to the sky-is-falling GW fans, or are these not reputable sources? There is uncertainty:<br><br>Uncertainties in Climate Predictions<br><br>Based on assumptions that concentrations of greenhouse gases will accelerate and conservative assumptions about how the climate will react to that, computer models suggest that average global surface temperatures will rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit and 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Projecting how the world's climate will change in the future requires estimating the amount of greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels and other human activities. These gases often remain in the atmosphere for many years, trapping radiation that would naturally escape into the atmosphere. The report identifies several components of climate change that are highly uncertain and make it difficult to predict future changes.<br><br>New Scientist discusses many of the uncertainties at the heart of the scientific debate on global warming.<br><br>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming in the last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases, which accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community, the committee said. However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales, and the degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years based on evidence from tree rings or ice cores.<br><br>The report urges the establishment of a vigorous program of basic research to reduce uncertainties in future climate projections. In addition, a global observing system that monitors long-term climate predictions is needed.<br>

Silence from the GW enthusiasts?<br><br>Please refer me to some newer information than that quoted in my previous post. Again, those quotes from the original posting title article show no certainty in regard to significant human causation except in the need for more study of the question. <br><br>This is an interesting and important topic. I have read what is presented because it is important. However passionate, most GW enthusiast's posts are fragmented, lack complete reference, and are just another regurgitation of the same old political leanings. Admittedly, some with significant scientific backgrounds may have commented, but again, where is the complete argument?<br><br>These articles:<br> www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/national/19wa...rss&pagewanted=print

www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_19_06_TJB_pf.html

reminded me of this posting discussion. By this I mean, if an idea differs from the popular GW enthusiast creed then the person daring to speak the idea is then immediately verbally flailed. Never mind the theory or thought behind the idea, if it is not in line with the GW creed, just shut up. The GW Enthusiast Creed may be something like- GW is an ultimate crisis, the US caused it, we must take immediate drastic steps such as forcing others (those rich folks) to reduce their consumption, and surely it will be better if we follow the Kyoto Protocol and transfer more US wealth to other countries.

How about some solid information?

Apprarently you believe that science must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that global climate change is caused solely by human activity before any action is warrented or prudent.<br><br>I suppose you were also in the camp that required absolute certainty that Hurricane Katrina was going breach the leevies in New Orleans before considering whether is was prudent to evacuate the city.<br><br>In some areas of human activity "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the correct standard. Convicting someone of a crime and jailing them is the obvious example.<br><br>However the vast majority of time government policy's are appropriatly influenced by a much less rigorous level of certainty. A good analogy is monitary policy -- the fed sets interest rates to balance inflation and growth as well as humanly possible -- but Mr Greenspan didn't wait until it could be absolutely proven that inflation was on the march before adjusting rates. Waiting until it was certain to take action would result in wider and more damaging varations in economic activity.<br><br>I think a simillar approach is prudent in terms of managing the environmental impact of human activity -- waiting for certainty before taking action will surely result in greater damage to both the environment and to economic vitality.<br><br>It seems that the current administration, perhaps because of it's deep personal ties to the oil industry, tries to create the appearance of greater uncertainty in global climate change that actually exists -- thus continuing to encourage expanding energy consumption both in the US and abroad. The result? -- record profits for Exxon and other oil companies.<br><br>Perhaps there is little that can be done at this point -- even if an agressive energy conservation program was started immediately in the US -- it's effect on the climate would be decades from now -- far longer than any US election cycle.<br><br><br>

As Randonnee said there is still uncertainty about climate science. I'm not a climate expert but as a product development engineer I'm comfortable dealing with ambiguity in decision making. I believe the consensus from the IPCC and other organizations is that our knowledge, while not perfect, is good enough to suggest that some sort of action is warranted. The signatories to the Kyoto treaty feel the same way. At the recent climate change conference in Montreal, Bill Clinton said that the Bush administration was "flat wrong" that Kyoto would hurt the U.S. economy. I think Clinton demonstrated better management of the economy during his two terms than the current administration, so I suspect he may be right.

I happened to see a long segment on GW on 60 minutes tonight. The scientist highlighted was convinced that GW is caused in part by mankinds activities. This show is always thought provoking though not necessarily evenly balanced.

Thanks for the responses. The GW enthusiast argument is so ardent, I wonder if I am missing something. I anticipate that some in this discussion are certain that I am "missing" a lot.<br><br>The GW discussion always seems to go back to politics.<br><br>The comments about uncertainty are thus far not disregarded by GW enthusiasts on this thread. I see a real possibility of groupthink here. Some of you would give that comment right back at me.<br><br>A measured response to this uncertain theory of significant human causation of GW is reasonable given the data. The commentary presented in the popular media and certain segments of society is not measured and reasonable.<br><br>