Is global warming making severe weather worse?

[Questor]

Seriously, I would like to see more studies done that actually describe in detail what our lives would look like if man did what the warmists say must be done to avoid climate disaster. All we ever hear about are fat cat fossil fuel energy companies paying reasonable fines, solar panels, wind energy, bikes and electric cars. As if that is the worst of it. I want a realistic picture of a post fossil fuel world. How many millions/billions die? How would moving beyond fossil fuel impact the spread of disease, hunger, economic/social mobility/political stability? How much will consumer energy use need to drop, assuming they could even get alternative energy to homes? Sometimes I get the feeling the warmists envision no real changes in lifestyle as if the far, far, far less efficient alternative fuel sources could remotely match how we live, now.

Washers, dryers, machinist tools, microwaves, irons, refrigerators, electronics, blah, blah. China and India busted back to the Middle Ages where hope of social mobility or even escaping poverty would be negatively impacted. None of this even takes into account the taxes routinely paid by consumers buying energy hog items - much of which would go away unless you were wealthy enough to pay higher prices for fuel. Great if you are wealthy - not so great for the poor. And a dip in tax revenue isn't helpful to communities, especially when the poor are having an even harder time keeping up. And btw, what about the workers making these items?

Ever read Dune?

This I agree with. I think we/USA are constantly having the wrong argument about this topic. Accept it's happening for whatever reason and start discussing whether or not there is really any practical impact we can have on it. For a problem where the worst case scenario is the end of life on earth we really are not giving it the thought it needs. It is basically like rebuilding in the flood plains of New Orleans, if New Orleans were our entire world.

I don't know what the answer is. I don't know that anyone does right now. That's why we should move on to discuss what we can do in all practicality. I do know that we can positively influence the world. In the decade or so since CFC aerosols have been banned from every country on earth the planets ozone layer depletion has already slowed. It is possible for humans to have big impacts.

I edited for clarity.

[Jim Kyle]

False dilemma. And a really, really bad one at that. ...snip... And let's be clear, if Earth experiences runaway geothermal warming, the entire population dies.

...snip...

There is a ton we don't know. But we know enough to say, 'hey, this doesn't look good. Guys, we should seriously take a look at what the data is showing us. CO2 is rising at rates never seen before and if it continues on this path, what we do know about CO2 trapped in atmospheres is that things get bad quickly.'

Lots of good reading material out there. Lots of studies.

I have no quibble at all with these points. I do, however, feel a need to point out that at this time, the panicky call by some of those trying to deal with the problem asks us to immediately cut off all use of fossil fuels. Right now, the alternatives are nowhere near any capability of filling the gap that would be created. For starters, the "green" balance of the most popular alternatives -- solar and wind -- is negative; creating the panels and turbines results in more environmental pollution than the resulting tools can save, for a net loss.

As our technologies improve, that will no longer be the case, but the improvement so far has been slow and painful. If we made any meaningful reduction in the use of fossil fuels in just North America, our transportation network would cease to operate. Airplanes would stay on the ground. Commuters would not be able to reach their jobs -- but that would not matter because most jobs would vanish. Without massive transport, local and national economies would collapse.

But as you say, things can get bad quickly if we don't cut back on CO2. Not just us, but the rest of the world -- notably China, India, and the former Soviet republics -- and none of them show any inclination to do so.

I believe that the removal of rain forests in South America and Africa is quite possibly at least as damaging to the planet's ecology as is the use of fossil fuels. However, that continues as "developing nations" compete for their places in the sun. I fear that they will find those places, sooner rather than later, because such things as tipping points do exist, and we may have already run out of time.

That being the case, perhaps we should consider maintaining the quality of what little time remains to our species, rather than sacrificing that quality of life in a doomed effort to avoid the unavoidable. Or perhaps not...

[PennyQuilts]

This is rather confusing considering the hundreds of studies that have been done. How many studies (what number, I suppose) should be done before PennyQuilts joins the rest of the scientific consensus? I love it when people say "I think more studies should be done" from people who read zero studies and then turn and ignore not just the people reading them, but doing the research and writing them. Is that what you are doing here?



Not true. You may be watching too much 'news'. The scientific discussion is much, much broader and is actually being done respectfully. Which is why energy companies are very deliberately pursuing alternatives as well. It's not just good marketing, teams of scientists and engineers within the companies also, very publicly, recognize the need to pivot.



You want a picture???



False dilemma. And a really, really bad one at that. The companies providing the energy would make the switch and at current kw/hr production rates, hardly would millions or billions be left in the dark. Just like it took a long time to get here, it would take a while to rebuild our energy systems, but companies aren't going to just cut off customers. They will make changes to their technology and the end users wont notice a thing. Unless there is a cost shift which, as we are seeing, is much less of a difference as Moore's law is having its way with alternative technologies -- especially in the last several years. And let's be clear, if Earth experiences runaway geothermal warming, the entire population dies.



Can you clarify what you mean?



Again, not true. And in fact, if you read those studies, you'd see that the major call from the science community is to start working on many different options. It's not like consensus is that we should all just go without electricity until we figure this out. It is that we need to start now building the technologies to get us to whatever those solutions will be. Small, mindful changes in the mean-time is all that is being proposed, seriously.

The challenge with all of this is that some folks are making it really hard to have the discussion about what those options can look like because they're stuck in some really old and/or bad data and insist on making this a political discussion, instead of a scientific one. That's the sense I got from reading your post. You provide no real information or debatable premises. Just lots of political talking points. The science is incredibly clear but that doesn't stop people from injecting doubt where there is none.

Runaway warming is a thing. Very good models show that with too much CO2 in the atmosphere, any planet reaches a point where it wont stop warming. We've DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere in the last couple hundred years. The very basic of facts as they relate to thermal mechanics and basic measurements tell us we should be very serious about this discussion.

There is a ton we don't know. But we know enough to say, 'hey, this doesn't look good. Guys, we should seriously take a look at what they data is showing us. CO2 is rising at rates never seen before and if it continues on this path, what we do know about CO2 trapped in atmospheres is that things get bad quickly.'

Lots of good reading material out there. Lots of studies.

Here's a question for you. If you were to be convinced that CO2 levels are rising at an unhealthy rate, what steps would you like to see the human species take to counter the problem?

Sid, you haven't done anything but insist "science will fix and replace." And you act incredulous that anyone would lack faith in this hope. As long as the warmists keep burying their heads in the sand and sending the false message that this is is a fix that's a done deal, they will continue to sound wacky. We have NO alternatives remotely online or even proven to take the place of fossil fuel and even if we had some decent theoretical models, the cost of retrofitting is prohibitive.
The warmists won't even talk about this - you, for example, are doing the typical sneer and claim that the science is settled/technology is there. And you guys don't want to talk about the misery and poverty developing countries would face if their reliance on fossil fuel was restricted in any possible manner

More co2 raises temperature. Got it. The warmists seem dumbfounded that "deniers" can't grasp that simple fact. But thing is, the warmists just don't understand what deniers are saying. Tying global warming to the rise in co2 as if there aren't multiple, significant factors impacting how the planet processes things is just bad science. When the warmists start making some coherent explanation explaining how the impact of the oceans, seasons, the sun, blah blah may be ignored so that a mere rise in co2 will cook the planet, go for it. The best they do is claim the ice caps will melt and once gone, the whole thing can't stop it. Then they ignore the rise and fall of the ice caps and call warmers anti science.

The argument by the warmers is that if we don't do something" we're all going to die. I repeat - how about drawing a realistic picture of what that "something" is instead of telling a fairy tale that life will go on as always based on all these groovy alternative energy sources that, to date, are paltry compared to fossil fuel (except nuclear). Then let us decide if we want to risk a global warming meltdown or damn billions to death and poverty - plus push us back to 1900 energy capacity.

[PWitty]

I have no quibble at all with these points. I do, however, feel a need to point out that at this time, the panicky call by some of those trying to deal with the problem asks us to immediately cut off all use of fossil fuels. Right now, the alternatives are nowhere near any capability of filling the gap that would be created. For starters, the "green" balance of the most popular alternatives -- solar and wind -- is negative; creating the panels and turbines results in more environmental pollution than the resulting tools can save, for a net loss.

As our technologies improve, that will no longer be the case, but the improvement so far has been slow and painful. If we made any meaningful reduction in the use of fossil fuels in just North America, our transportation network would cease to operate. Airplanes would stay on the ground. Commuters would not be able to reach their jobs -- but that would not matter because most jobs would vanish. Without massive transport, local and national economies would collapse.

But as you say, things can get bad quickly if we don't cut back on CO2. Not just us, but the rest of the world -- notably China, India, and the former Soviet republics -- and none of them show any inclination to do so.

I believe that the removal of rain forests in South America and Africa is quite possibly at least as damaging to the planet's ecology as is the use of fossil fuels. However, that continues as "developing nations" compete for their places in the sun. I fear that they will find those places, sooner rather than later, because such things as tipping points do exist, and we may have already run out of time.

That being the case, perhaps we should consider maintaining the quality of what little time remains to our species, rather than sacrificing that quality of life in a doomed effort to avoid the unavoidable. Or perhaps not...

I agree with you Jim, especially on the bolded statements. I think for far too many people the ONLY solution is quit using all fossil fuels right now. This is the most shortsighted response possible, yet when you disagree with someone who has that opinion they say you're a Conservative nut job and bury their head in the sand when you try and actually have a discussion with them. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of real Conservative nut jobs who will still deny Climate Change. But there are also just as many Liberal nut jobs who think the only answer is to shut down all fossil fuel use/production by tomorrow and replace their void with renewables. Renewables have their place, and it will continue to grow, but they are nowhere near ready to shoulder the entire nation or world's energy burden. There are very few places, the Pacific NW for instance being one of them, that have the natural amenities to be able to provide the majority of their energy from renewables at this time.

The easiest thing that can be done RIGHT NOW, is for every person to step back and look at their energy usage in their personal life and make strides to be more efficient with what they do and how they do it so that we (as a nation and a world) can continue to reduce our fossil fuel demands. This applies to water use as well. Unfortunately, most people are more bark than bite and when those changes have an impact to their quality of living they do nothing at all. The other big thing that we can do RIGHT NOW is continue to require companies to produce higher efficiency products, especially energy efficient building materials and automobiles. I have a buddy who is an ArchE and he was dropping some figures to me about how much energy is lost due to inefficient building materials and it was pretty staggering. Buildings are something that most people don't think of when they think about Climate Change or fossil fuel demands.

[PennyQuilts]

Very nice, PWitty. I agree. I appreciate you pointing out what the warmest are pretending isn't an issue. We can have intelligent discussions about this but only if the warmists don't automatically assume anyone who questions the science and the "solution" is a Neanderthal. IMO, they aren't being honest about what a post fossil fuel world looks like even under the best of circumstances. The notion that we can "supplement" alternative energy sources with fossil fuel until we are weaned off makes no sense economically or within the timetable the warmists have insisted upon. I think they way overplayed their hand to stir up support not realizing that the drop dead date to save the planet would get here so fast. I think 99% of warmists think life will go on pretty much the way it has with minimal sacrifice. That's just not realistic. We may all die from global warming but the "solution" would be to sacrifice billions on the front end and massive political and social upheaval to follow. We In energy rich Oklahoma may take ready energy (no matter what we think about alternative sources) for granted but people in the north will frickin freeze to death if they can't afford fuel or retrofitting. And even if we made the sacrifice that included our own population, developing countries aren't going to. Like it or not, if global warming is coming based on co2 use, better get used to the idea because we don't have the power to stop it.

[FritterGirl]

The issue isn't helped when politicians - and yes, plenty of them on the "right" side of the aisle - continually move to block opportunities for alternative fuel solutions to be integrated into mainstream practice.

[Dubya61]

The issue isn't helped when politicians - and yes, plenty of them on the "right" side of the aisle - continually move to block opportunities for alternative fuel solutions to be integrated into mainstream practice.

This is incredibly true. I can't for the life of me figure out why OK (in what was described by a friend as ALEC legislation) has now saw fit (please overlook my bad grammar) to tax, fee, charge, whatever you want to call it, low scale energy generators in the form of personal(ish) solar and wind generators .
I realize that OK is firmly in the oil industry's pocket, but what does it hurt to allow people to attempt to do something good? for themselves and their community?

[Jim Kyle]

I fail to see the constant call for complete removal of burning fossil fuels from the equation. All I see is a whole lot of companies and industries trying to make meaningful progress and folks like PennyQuilts snarking at the whole process.

Are you saying you never saw Al Gore's "truths" campaign?

if all of your information is coming from talking heads on the news, you're probably just going to keep saying the same things...

That's awfully close to an ad hominem attack, and a definite assumption on your part. Penny, PWitty, and I are attempting to have a reasonable look at the situation and at the practical alternatives. To me it's a given that the energy companies are doing their utmost to develop achievable renewables. It's the only way they can stay in business. For example, converting from the use of gasoline or diesel to using CNG to power automotive transport is a step in the right direction -- and is being ignored by many because CNG is still a fossil fuel, and because its production may increase the risk of earthquakes.

I'm frustrated that you are dancing around the realities here. You said you wanted to see more studies. Last night did you go read any or are you just back to toss out more REALLY VAGUE objections to us starting to make change. I never said the science and technology today is perfect. Didn't I say exactly the opposite and that we are trying very hard to make progress but for some reason, SOME PEOPLE are questioning those efforts. And that's annoying. Especially when they say really confusing things like 'we need more studies'.

The scientific, energy, and technology industries are moving towards trying to solve this. No one has claimed it is solved.

However, the topic and point still stands, we all agree that runaway CO2 trapped into our atmosphere is a bad thing and we've all got to start thinking about ways to stop that. However, as you can see in this thread, those who hold the purse strings are still chewing on that first part. The scientific community is playing catch-up now to try to educate people about what's happening and how bad it could get. Again, the jeering audience is just making it harder.

I don't think we're jeering; we're only asking that the rabble-rousing political "leaders" abandon the headlong rush to return the world to the days of whale-oil lamps (while saving the whales) and tallow candles.

I'm not accusing you, Sid, of being one of those. I'm accusing the folk who dreamed up the Kyoto accords and then emasculated the effort by introducing "carbon credits" to be traded like a currency. The idiocy of that approach triggered equally idiotic reaction from opponents, and brought us to the present gridlock condition.

I'll repeat myself. So long as we depend on Asia and its massive pollution of the atmosphere to maintain us in comfort, so long as Brazil and the African nations are charging forward in their destruction of nature's CO2 filter the rain forests, so long as we individuals fail to take what steps we can to minimize our own extravagant waste of energy, so long as those factors persist, there's little hope for a favorable outcome.

However nature is far more powerful than we puny humans, and it's possible that we might not only survive but do so with unbelievably improved conditions. A study conducted years ago attempted to create a metric for human progress by enumerating the amount of energy that could be controlled by a single individual. Plotted over time from the stone age to the middle of the 20th century, it turned out to be a logarithmic curve -- and it went asymptotic in the year 1984. Had the study's predictions been accurate, the amount of energy that one person could control would have become infinite, unlimited, at that time 30 years ago. Obviously that did not happen, and the laws of physics dictate that it cannot ever take place -- but it gives me hope, at least, that some discovery might be right around the corner. Meanwhile, we need to do the best we can with what we have. No person can do more.

[venture]

This is so far off topic from the original post, is there a need for us to have another global warming debate that hasn't been argued in dozens of other threads?

This thread originated to discuss impacts on global warming on severe weather. This thread probably should have been locked after the first dozen posts when the question was answered before it jumped the shark into the political realm of "human caused warming" and fossil fuel usage debates.

[PWitty]

Sid, I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. I was just piggy-backing Jim's point that there are a lot of folks who jump to the "eliminate all fossil fuels now" extreme without being open to considering any other options. And I'm not talking about people within the scientific community because they obviously know better. I'm talking about the media and politicians, who a large part of the population base all of their opinions on.

Germany, while they are making great strides, have had plenty of road bumps in their path to ramp up renewable power. I believe they have the highest electricity costs in the industrialized world, and are also burning more coal now than at any point in the last 20+ years to offset their reduction in nuclear power and the intermittent nature of wind/solar. The conventional energy grid needs to be completely overhauled before wind/solar can reach their true potential both in Germany and the rest of the world. You also can't look to Germany and expect every other country in the world to be able to duplicate their successes, or their failures. Like I said in my previous post, everybody is not in position both geographically and economically to be able to make such a quick and large-scale shift to renewable power like Germany (and other areas throughout the US/world) has.

[LocoAko]

More co2 raises temperature. Got it. The warmists seem dumbfounded that "deniers" can't grasp that simple fact. But thing is, the warmists just don't understand what deniers are saying. Tying global warming to the rise in co2 as if there aren't multiple, significant factors impacting how the planet processes things is just bad science. When the warmists start making some coherent explanation explaining how the impact of the oceans, seasons, the sun, blah blah may be ignored so that a mere rise in co2 will cook the planet, go for it. The best they do is claim the ice caps will melt and once gone, the whole thing can't stop it. Then they ignore the rise and fall of the ice caps and call warmers anti science.

There's plenty of work done (read the IPCC report) about feedbacks. No one is saying CO2 warms the Earth, the end. We understand that most of the uncertainty lies within the cumulative effect of the feedbacks, with some less understood than others. But don't present the issue like scientists are goofy morons completely unaware of the complexities of the system.

From the 2007 IPCC report:



Furthermore, the discussion about what can be done about climate change is one obviously worth having and one I (nor anyone else) has a real answer to. I like reading these debates. But your original posts seemed to cast doubt on the entire basis of climate change for no real reason and I feel the goal posts have been moved. Are you questioning the science, or the solutions?

[PennyQuilts]

It isn't the scientists who are necessarily goofy and no one I know is saying that.

The goofy ones are the warmists who treat skeptics, even just those with questions that don't challenge the underlying assumptions, as being anti- science. The goofy ones are the guys who go so far as to say the whole thing is simple, ie, more co2 = higher temperatures (how can Anyone argue with THAT!). When someone sneeringly makes that argument (and they do, constantly - along with the claim that it's "settled science"), they sound like idiots. Sorry - but that's the opposite of science.

If the credible warmist crowd wants to be taken seriously by the skeptics, they might want to spend a little energy correcting the completely dumbed down, moronic claims by their army of true believers. This is NOT simple stuff and if it were as obvious as a lot of these tools seem to believe, I guarantee you, we wouldn't be having an argument. Every time I hear a warmist puffed up with moral outrage that they are surrounded by such idiocy I shave off a little bit of the benefit of the doubt. Those kinds of arguments are right up there with the guy wearing. Repent placard shouting on the side of the road.

Happy to talk to a real scientist with no skin the game - my experience is that most love the science and enjoy explaining it. But the ones turning this into a smart vs stupid argument aren't helping the cause - especially since most can't answer straight questions without lapsing back into "it's settled and only an idiot questions." IMO, that group is the biggest hurdle of the whole movement.

Sid, to be clear, I am not particularly including you in this. I'm working off your post just to structure this comment but you aren't nearly as bad as many.

But still - I've yet to see any serious study lay out in clear terms about what to realistically expect under a primarily alternative fuel world. No offense, but claiming that life won't change much is ludicrous short of finding an energy source not yet in existence. We can't rely on that. At this point, It's wishful thinking. We can and should reduce our energy consumption and get more efficient energy appliances. But trying to minimize how this will actually look in the real world isn't honest. Add buying all new, smaller, more efficient appliances as part of retrofitting when we consider the cost. Oh, someone can't afford that? Who is going to be able to provide these for the whole nation? And to suggest retrofitting is no big deal is mind boggling - just think of the parts, training, labor, cost, etc to hit just about every residence in the country just to "rewire" access to this mythical new efficient energy source. Now add in government and commercial buildings. And then let's talk about the currently nonexistent distribution system.

If we are racing the clock to save the world, just how long to we really have? The lunatic fringe warmists have already claimed we'd be in a death spiral right this minute. How can anyone take seriously - now - that we actually have many decades to avoid catastrophe? Because that seems to be the completely contradictory response if you can get someone to actually address the question. And I can't get anyone to actually discuss the whole China and India thing. It is like there are fingers in their ears.

I am tired of being told that skepticism on this issue is indicative of being anti science or stupidity. I am tired of overblown claims being made and then hard deadlines being pushed back. I am tired of warmist claims that we are going to burn up the planet painted in neon, but refusal to realistically and honestly layout what would happen if we DID take the steps they claim is needed to save the world. I am tired of having legitimate questions and concerns prompt insults. And I am tired of people dumbing down an obviously very complex phenomenon and expecting me to accept something that, on its face, is unscientific. I am tired of being spoon fed a simplified narrative by people who can repeat conclusions but assume anyone who isn't as accepting as they are must be anti science.

I believe in climate change. I'm skeptical that rising CO2 is the driving force. I don't believe the hysterical claims of the warmists in terms of timelines. I am weary of warmists trying to make hay with every broken weather record or rain shower even when it falls within reasonable expected weather patterns. I am tired of being fed pablum and lectured for not accepting "settled science." I don't think for an instant that mankind can avoid complete catastrophe if we shift off fossil fuel absent widespread nuclear or a fairy tale new energy source. And even if the warmists are on the money, I don't think the biggest offenders are going to play ball so the only thing harsh measures will accomplish is to impoverish our country - and we'll still burn.

Rant over, I'm done.

[PennyQuilts]

Except to answer a question - yes, I somewhat moved the goalposts/issue. I said it in the last post but to summarize:

I believe in climate change.

I'm Skeptical that CO2 is going to create catastrophic climate change (again, please no one insist I am anti science for not understanding that greater co2 raises the temperature - I GET that).

If the warmists are correct, I have no faith that we can do stop it because the worst offenders won't cooperate even if we did.

I believe that if we managed to "save the planet" by reducing fossil fuels to the levels allegedly needed, not only would billions die (primarily in China, India and nations whose governments collapsed), we'd be living in a much less comfortable world more akin to 1900 than 2014. And short of some fabulous new energy source, we'd be poor. A largely urban population has higher energy needs than rural 1900 and compared to now, 1900 was like camping out.

[Jim Kyle]

I believe that if we managed to "save the planet" by reducing fossil fuels to the levels allegedly needed, not only would billions die (primarily in China, India and nations whose governments collapsed), we'd be living in a much less comfortable world more akin to 1900 than 2014. And short of some fabulous new energy source, we'd be poor. A largely urban population has higher energy needs than rural 1900 and compared to now, 1900 was like camping out.

First, don't go away. We cannot have that reasoned, rational discussion if you pull out. If need be, Pete can move these posts to a new thread where we can continue and still be on topic.

Now to the point at which I disagree with you. I've emphasized it in the quote above. I think it would be much more like 1500 than like 1900. By 1900 we were using electricity to some degree, and combustion engines powered several forms of transport.

Some folk -- not any of the most vocal participants in this discussion -- have concentrated on CO2 and excluded the contribution of methane to the collection of greenhouse gases. The study reported above shows it to be much less significant, but it still seems to be in second place. And nobody has fingered the major sources of free methane in the atmosphere. Number one, apparently, is the huge collection of cattle and other ruminants that comprise a large part of the planet's food supply. However, several billion human beings also contribute to it -- on a daily basis unless constipated. Are the warmists willing to do away with current sanitary sewage plants, to sequester that source underground?

To get back to the title topic for this thread, I can see no reason at all to doubt that the climate change we all agree is happening has a direct connection to the worsening of severe weather, just as it does to the establishment of new arid regions including our own surroundings. It IS "climate change," after all, meaning that it is changing our climate -- and those changes can be for the worse, for the better, neither, or both, depending entirely on the eye of the observer...

[Dustin]

[Plutonic Panda]

That's almost like how people who believe in man-made global warming seem to only look back a hundred years or so. I believe the atmosphere was a little hotter a few billion year ago. We as humans have only been on this earth for a minuscule amount of time and add in the industrial revolution, you'd have to use a microscope to see that age of the earth if you looked at a foot long graph to scale.

[venture]

That's almost like how people who believe in man-made global warming seem to only look back a hundred years or so. I believe the atmosphere was a little hotter a few billion year ago. We as humans have only been on this earth for a minuscule amount of time and add in the industrial revolution, you'd have to use a microscope to see that age of the earth if you looked at a foot long graph to scale.

To be fair...a few billion years ago the Earth was still cooling from its early formative existence. So we really can't use that as a basis of comparison.

[Plutonic Panda]

To be fair...a few billion years ago the Earth was still cooling from its early formative existence. So we really can't use that as a basis of comparison.

I had a whole seven paragraphs typed out and lost every damn piece of it because of this stupid computer.

Anyhow..... basically the earth is ever changing and the climate never stays the same. That was my point.

[TAlan CB]

The planet isn't nearly that simple and, no offense, but I find that analogy rather frightening if you think that is how the planet works. That sort of experiment doesn't factoring in the enormous impact of our huge oceans, the movement of air, seasons, temperature changes based on topography, plants, the sun, volcanoes, plus so many other factors.

I don't disagree that we need to take care if the planet but CO2 doesn't hurt the planet one bit. It even helps many plants.

Whether people believe in global warming or not does not really matter, there is a lack of will to do anything. But C02 increase is a major issue. Plants like it (of-course they are all being cut down), but there is not enough - so where is it going. Simple, the oceans are absorbing it. In the process they are becoming more acidic - and the worlds reefs - calcium based (all those 'shell' animals) are dying off in-mass. They are the basis of the oceanic food chain. Nature will adjust, it has done so many times in geologic history. Life and the planet will go on. It will simply change to such a degree that the systems of agriculture, etc. that we depend on will have to change dramatically if society, as it is now, wishes to continue. But they lack the political and personal will .... so it wont and there will be 'disruptions'. Mans not changing the environment? 6 Billion people eating, defecating, 1/4 driving cars not change the environment? Wow.

[Plutonic Panda]

Whether people believe in global warming or not does not really matter, there is a lack of will to do anything. But C02 increase is a major issue. Plants like it (of-course they are all being cut down), but there is not enough - so where is it going. Simple, the oceans are absorbing it. In the process they are becoming more acidic - and the worlds reefs - calcium based (all those 'shell' animals) are dying off in-mass. They are the basis of the oceanic food chain. Nature will adjust, it has done so many times in geologic history. Life and the planet will go on. It will simply change to such a degree that the systems of agriculture, etc. that we depend on will have to change dramatically if society, as it is now, wishes to continue. But they lack the political and personal will .... so it wont and there will be 'disruptions'. Mans not changing the environment? 6 Billion people eating, defecating, 1/4 driving cars not change the environment? Wow.

7.1 billion, but who's counting

Population Clock

[jn1780]

Whether people believe in global warming or not does not really matter, there is a lack of will to do anything. But C02 increase is a major issue. Plants like it (of-course they are all being cut down), but there is not enough - so where is it going. Simple, the oceans are absorbing it. In the process they are becoming more acidic - and the worlds reefs - calcium based (all those 'shell' animals) are dying off in-mass. They are the basis of the oceanic food chain. Nature will adjust, it has done so many times in geologic history. Life and the planet will go on. It will simply change to such a degree that the systems of agriculture, etc. that we depend on will have to change dramatically if society, as it is now, wishes to continue. But they lack the political and personal will .... so it wont and there will be 'disruptions'. Mans not changing the environment? 6 Billion people eating, defecating, 1/4 driving cars not change the environment? Wow.

Of course, its about survival for many. Parasites dont have the ability to stop growing. We are pretty much at the peak of the oil age. The only question is will it be a gradual decline or collapse.

[PennyQuilts]

Perhaps it was just a sloppy phrase, but just let me point out that nobody is saying man isn't changing the environment. Jeeze. That sort of interpretation of "skepticism" is one of the reasons this subject is so difficult to discuss. The warmists insist on thinking that people not in lock step are idiots. They not only think they know all the answers ( they don't) they don't even under stand the questions being asked.

There are many kinds of ways to impact the environment and it is done all the time. Climate is merely one aspect of the environment and the debate is not whether man is impacting his environment. The debate is whether man's actions are fundamentally changing the climate. Only an idiot would claim man isn't impacting his environment, the air, water and soil. Pretending that is the argument being made by skeptics is absurd. The argument is whether the planet is a complex system that can absorb man's assaults on the environment or whether the rise in Co2 will fundamentally change the climate so as to make it uninhabitable. Man destroys and kills fellow species all the time - every large city is a concrete graveyard on a vast part of his environment. The same people concerned about global warming typically show zero concern about other species' habitats they routinely destroy.

Sorry, but it is aggravating to try to have a discussion and people just insult the intelligence of skeptics by assuming they don't grasp things that straightforward. On the other hand, In fairness, I suppose they get irritated to have it pointed out that this is a complex system because that's pretty obvious, too.

[Plutonic Panda]

Here's something interesting. Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ.com

[Dustin]

[mugofbeer]

The issue isn't helped when politicians - and yes, plenty of them on the "right" side of the aisle - continually move to block opportunities for alternative fuel solutions to be integrated into mainstream practice.

FritterGirl, perhaps being in the worlds MOST Republican-dominated state has made it harder to see but in states where there is energy production, the Democrats continue to support development of fossil fuels as well as support alternative fuel solutions. Republicans would be far more likely to support certain initiatives for alternative solutions if it didn't result in massive government expenditures and interfere with marketplace balances.

In Colorado the main barrier to energy development is the Federal Government and the roadblocks they put up along with money wasting requirements for forced use of alternative sources. These requirements are directly responsible for a semi-serious attempt by energy-rich counties to break away from the rest of the state. The president continues to be one of the few people (other than hard-core anti fossil-fuel environmentalists) who is still opposed to the Keystone XL Pipeline. At the same time, the alternative transportation source, trains carrying the oil pumped from North Dakota are shown to be more volatile and more prone to explosion and already have killing several people. With thoughtful, rationale and reasonable regulation and oversight by government, the marketplace nearly always comes up with a better solution.

The issue is the way the alternative fuel solutions are supported. The right wants to see it done in a market-driven way where alternative fuel solutions pay for themselves. The left wants a government driven solution which is fraught with problems as was seen with all the renewable energy company loans made by the O-administration that have gone bust at OUR expense because the products made by the companies the loans were extended to were not economically feasible. I am all for encouragement of solutions that will pay for themselves - natural gas auto's will never become mainstream until there are thousands more refueling stops. This is something that government could help with but seems to not understand which is starting to convert the basic infrastructure.

Just like Bricktown has been the catalyst for billions of dollars of private investment in Oklahoma City, worthwhile government-paid projects can be the catalyst for a cascade of market-driven investment. The requirement is that it must be profitable for the market to take over.