Comment by kyle aka chuck

February 2, 2007 @ 7:18 pm

Well Sir Peters, as you asked for, this is my own personal opinion. I don’t believe us as people have that much effect on the climate. By what I have read and studied, which is more than the normal person but not extensive, is that the sun has put out more energy over the last couple decades heating everything. Case in point, Mars’ ice caps are shrinking, can’t really blame SUV’s for that. I recommend reading “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. Very good read.

Comment by Ron

February 4, 2007 @ 12:48 am

If “that woman” believes it, I’m 99.99% sure it’s just crap.

Comment by Geof F. Morris

February 4, 2007 @ 7:55 pm

Eric:

As my alma mater is home to one of global warming’s more notable critics [Dr. John Christy], I have a different take on this than most folks do. Essentially, my argument is that, yes, humans seem to be having an impact on climate change, but the climate has been steadily warming for the last seven or eight centuries.

Any theories on climate change are hard to prove because we don’t know all the variables at work. Above, Kyle discusses energy output of the Sun. That’s one. There’s also geothermal warming based upon slowly changing gravitational conditions, etc. All I know is that the fossil record indicates that this planet has been both far warmer and far colder than it is now.

Now, movies like An Inconvenient Truth do make a point that’s important to be made: coastlines change. Whether the change is man-made or Nature-made, it’s clear that living in coastal areas is an iffy proposition. I know that a lot of folks have concern that cities like Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C. would be endangered by oceanic rise, and they almost assuredly will be at some point, but the rate of change is slow enough that it can be accounted for.

We have two choices: rebuild our infrastructure to move further inland or do as The Netherlands have done and build sea gates. Neither will be inexpensive, but one or the other will be necessary. I think that the greatest lesson of Hurricane Katrina is that, eventually, Nature can tear down most anything that man can make.

As to the general question of whether man can have such an impact: sure, it’s theoretically possible. I’m not always sure that global warming enthusiasts fully appreciate L’Chatelier’s Principle—the chemical principle that argues that systems work to resolve stresses—but they do get one thing right: if we simultaneously increase carbon dioxide output into the atmosphere while deforesting, the plant world is not going to be able to handle it all. What resolves the CO2 issue? Likely the oceans. But that’s going to change the chemistry of the oceans, and that has some adverse effects.

I think the thing that frustrates me the most about global warming is this idea that, now that we’ve hit the modern era, the earth is supposed to have stopped changing. That’s just so laughable. No matter how old or new you think the earth is—and I’m an old earth guy—there’s just way too much data that says that it’s a complex ecosystem that has some equilibrium characteristics and some non-equilibrium characteristics. We very well may effect that ecosystem—we have a lot of organisms these days, and we’re damnably efficient—but that doesn’t mean that the ecosystem won’t effect us, too.

Allllll that said: I’m for re-forestation, cutting fossil fuel use, and controlling pollution. I understand the U.S. policy regarding things like Kyoto, but that’s like saying that we won’t be signatories to the Geneva Convention because some nations don’t uphold human rights. [Oh, we could go somewhere with that…]

Comment by Curt

February 6, 2007 @ 5:56 am

I saw “Inconvenient Truth” and intuitively felt that it was dripping with sophistry. Nearly every statement Mr. Gore makes regarding climate science and policy is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or just plain wrong.

I haven’t researched the issue of global warming in any great detail, but intuitively–I think Eric’s inclinations are accurate. A significant portion of the scientific community calls the THEORY bunk. I do think it’s arrogant to believe that humanity can significantly alter the continuity of the planet to any significant degree.

The blip of time that we’ve even measured weather is insignificant. To make strong, conclusive conclusions, we need to get into what arm-chair statisticians call “the long term,” which is still a long way away.

Yes, we should keep an mind open. Yes, we should think critically, but no–we should not embrace so-called scientific information that emanates from politicians (or former politicians!).

And by the way, anybody that believes in global warming hasn’t spent any time in Nebraska this week.

Comment by Curt

February 6, 2007 @ 5:58 am

… and Chuck, it’s nice to see you are still out and about … !!!

Comment by Nick

February 14, 2007 @ 11:16 am

I’m no GW expert either, but it seems that the ultimate answer by those who are is to take better care of our planet. I would argue that we should be doing that anyway, Global Warming or not. So, why don’t we just agree to take better care, direct some tax dollars to do it, and get over it?

Am I over-simplifying?

Comment by variable

February 16, 2007 @ 12:48 am

yeah…what he, she, and that other guy said…yeah

As I have been in this convo with mates here in Colorado - who are freezing our asses off, Mr Gore -our western and moving east World tends to operate out of a place that sees Humanity as the center, though they would never say it as such. So, why woludn’t the world think we are the ones making everything change?

The universe, the world is much bigger than us. And considering the utterly amazing resilience that just humans have to adjust and survive, and thrive…I am not too worried that an enourmous planet cant handle a little change.

Comment by rick from ga

March 1, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

Bumper sticker:
“EARTH FIRST…..
We can destroy the other planets later.”