Typical, you never did answer one question directly and then you close the topic. I believe you were the one who said that there are no Liberal owned media outlets, only Conservative owned making conservative money. Please name or give me examples of conservative owned media other than Fox. You really have your head in a hole if you believe politics do not sway reporting. Pick up copies of the Washington Times and the Washington Post on the same day and look at the papers. The stories on the front page will be completely different. It will seem like two different days. Wake Up!

Yah, it was an issue dug up by the liberal media when Ronald Reagan ran foroffice and became our president. Do you see a trend here? Global Warming was quieted during Clinton and became a issue again for "W". So who runs the stories and issues in the media? Liberals do and yes this bias is strong when a Republican president is in office.

You're throwing out things like you've read hundreds of articles that say global warming in real and that man's to blame. Well what do you think these people are all basing their premises upon? You all talk and write based upon what someone else of talked to and repeated the same tired unproven theories. You have no proof that any change of the Earth's climate is impacted in any significant way by what man does.
A single major volcanic eruption puts many times the amount of compounds into the atmosphere as a century of man's activities.

I'm really disgusted with pseudo-scientists and "people like you" who call yourselves hunters who repeat all of this foolishness about manmade "global warming". All you'll possibly succeed in doing is destroying America's economy with instituting these draconian regulations of this abomination like the Kyoto Accord.

You never did speak to the causes of the numerous heating and cooling cycles within our planets history, the most recent being in the past several hundred years. The "Little Ice Age" and the preceding period of extended warmer temperatures reported throughout Europe and other parts of the world that lead to such an abundance of crops and increase of the standard of living directly contradict the "hockey stick" charting of "global" climatic temps. so often erroneously referred to as "proof" of this myth.

I have just lurked on this thread so far, but I have decided to weigh-in. First let me preface this by saying that I have a degree in Chemical Engineering with a minor in Biochemistry and I have spoken extensively on this topic with my brother who is a Scientist at SCRIPPS Institution of Oceanography at UCSD and has worked with a team doing research on Climate Change in association with NOAA. He graduated from Duke with a degree in environmentalsciences and a degree in geology. I don't say this to brag, I say this so that I will not be viewed as a "pseudo-scientists".

I have nothing to show that I am not a, so called hunter, but I am not entirely sure that I know what that means.

Anyway on to the answers.

QUESTION: If climate changes naturally over time, why isn't the current warming just another natural cycle?

ANSWER: Earth’s climate does change naturally, but the current warming is not natural. Known natural causes of warming, such as the sun, have been constant in the past 30 years, so they cannot explain the warming of the past 30 years. The pattern of the current warming is also highly unnatural. For example, it is warming more at night than during the day; this is expected for CO2-caused heat trapping, because CO2 works at night, whereas natural warming would be more in the day. A long list of similar patterns (a "fingerprint" of human-caused warming) proves conclusively that the warming isn't natural.

QUESTION: It snowed last winter! There can't be global warming!
(Or: Myneighborhood is cooling! There can't be global warming!)

ANSWER: The warming trend is superimposed on significant natural variability.

QUESTION: Scientists can't predict the weather next week. Why do they think they can predict the climate in 50 years?

ANSWER: If you flip a coin, you can't predict whether it will land as heads or tails, but you can be absolutely confident that you have a 50% chance of heads and a 50% chance of tails. Predicting climate is predicting the probability of events, not the actual occurrence of events. Global warming is a forced problem. Imagine a loaded dice, and that every week you put more loading weight in it. The loading factor here is CO2. More and more of it every year, known for 100 years to warm the planet.

QUESTION: Climate scientists can't predict when we will pass an irreversible threshold into catastrophe—whether it’s 10 years from now or 100 years from now—so why believe them at all?

ANSWER: It has been known since 1869 that CO2 traps heat. This is settled physics. It has been shown beyond a shadow of doubt that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% in the last 150 years. Basic physics plus remedial math—the rest is details. It is true that climate scientists can't predict when irreversible thresholds will be crossed, because we don’t yet fully understand the behavior of Earth’s complex climate system. But that does not mean that the basic understanding that CO2 causes warming is flawed.
To use a medical analogy, just because your doctor can't tell you the precise date and time that you will have a heart attack doesn't mean you should ignore his advice and keep on eating fatty, high-calorie food. Medical science is imperfect, just like climate science.

QUESTION: Scientists disagree. We don't know the science well enough yet, so why should we do anything?

ANSWER: Actually, there is strong scientific consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change. See the consensus/position statements of:

- National Academy of Sciences
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- American Meteorological Society (AMS)
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Oreskes (Science, 2004) analyzed all abstracts in refereed scientific publications from 1993­–2003 with the keywords "global climate change" (928 papers). None disagreed with the consensus position that human activities are causing the current warming.

QUESTION: Climate change and its effects are too uncertain. Why should we do anything?

ANSWER: Even the most conservative models show significant disruption.
All decisions are made against a background of uncertainty. While it's true that scientists can't completely predict the future, that doesn't mean we should give up all attempts at planning according to our best knowledge.

QUESTION: Since it's snowing more on land-based ice sheets due to the warming, wouldn't this make sea level fall rather than rise?

ANSWER: It is indeed snowing more than it used to in the interiors of Antarctica and Greenland, because warmer air holds more moisture, but the mass gain in the interiors is more than offset by the mass loss around the margins due to glaciers sliding faster into the ocean in response to warming. So the net change is one of mass loss from the ice sheets, which is causing sea level to rise. This is responsible for about half of the observed 3 mm rise per year. The mass loss of Antarctica has been recently verified by the GRACE gravity satellite, which showed that gravity over Antarctica is weakening due to the loss of mass.

QUESTION: Isn't the urban heat island effect (that elevates temperatures in large cities relative to rural areas) responsible for the measured increase in global temperature?

ANSWER: There is no urban heat island effect in the oceans, which cover nearly 3/4 of Earth's surface, yet sea surface and deep ocean temperatures are also increasing, consistent with what's occurring on land.

I can't take credit for this. This comes from something that my brother helped put together. He sent it to me after I told him about this thread. On the other side of the argument the climate cycle argument holds a lot of water with me. However, if you believe that all of mankind's contributions do not have a adverse effect on the situation, then your probably only fooling yourself.

P.S. - As my brother does not visit this site please direct all of your slander toward me.

Thanks

Good post Reefdonkey - very well stated - and while I admit that I have no formal training in climatology or any of the earth sciences, I do have some experience with environmental matters (legal), and conservation. From my standpoint, I would also agree that global warming is a very real, very serious problem that we, as outdoorsmen, should be very aware of. I know you guys are thinking - how does environmental law mesh with global warming? Well, you'll find out that the research goes far beyond legal briefs - you wind up doing extensive scientific research just to get a grip on the regulations and the sum & substance of the law... Anyway...

I surely don't think that global warming is a fiction of a liberal media, and I do agree that there have been administrations (both liberal and conservative) who have turned their back on environmental concerns, which has contributed to the current situation. So, if you guys really believe that global warming is just a figment of some liberal imagination, you're only fooling yourself, and by continuing to ignore the problem, you're just passing it on to the next generation.

Thanks quik, I wish that we only had to worry about this issue "as outdoorsmen", but I am afraid that the scope of this issue reaches far beyond that boundary. I do however agree that this is one of the issues that political parties grab hold of and twist to fit their own agenda. That of course leads to people landing on one extreme or the other due to their political affiliation.

All that I can say is that even if you don't believe that we are at fault, what does it hurt to be a little more environmentally conscious?

Reefdonkey -I agree with your statement. I don't think we are entirely to blame on this issue, I think global warming or global"colding" is a natural planet earth occurance. We were just discussing this in the teachers faculty room yesterday and many people were bringing up the whole ice cap melting as evidence in the North pole to justify why Al gore should get credit for all the hogwash in his new movie. I sat there and laughed. As our science teacher explained......"where are the critics on global warming when the South Pole is brought up. He said evidence shows that in the south pole new ice caps and ice pack, colder temperatures are forming there, but know one talks about it. Where is our fair and balance reporting?

Since we found someone to answer this science topic, I would like to know a few other things.

Where is my flying car? It was supposed to be here on Jan. 1, 2000.

Why can't my car run on garbage?

Do hedgehogs create crop circles?

[8D]

WOW, great post reef. You brought in the scientist brother, which I can't do, but I'm sure that I could post a rebuttal from another scientist with my point of view. I think that we just have to understand that maybe we do have to look into this a little more and be honest about the findings and do more to help the earth. I just want you to remember that the United States has more enviromental regulations than ANY country in the world when it comes to this topic. How come the Global Warming crowd is only yelling about Pres. Bush not signing the Kyoto agreement? How about Europe and South America and China. China is opening a coal fired electric facility every month. The US has not opened one in 17 years. This is all about getting US dollars into other countries pockets and Politics.

All Ostriches with your head in the sand! I almost feel sorry for the ignorance. I don't care what media you watch on the TV its all propaganda with underlining political agendas. The Kyoto Protocal does nothing but better the environment. With Bush's ignorance and shortsightedness and with his hand in the oil industry; Is it any wonder why he doesn't want it. Are we that behind in the world to understand that we need to start takingbetter care of our planet? The reason Toyota overtook GM in totally sales is b/c GM can't be driven anywhere except the US. Every other countries emission levels standards are too high to drive those vehicles. But we wouldn't want tolower the emission levels too much and totally put GM under. I mean how much moneydid GM give to the Bush campaign? It's a terrible web and we are allmade out to be flies.