Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

OK Dr Coles you found a site making a bunch of claims against climate change, but it even say on the bottom of the page “While the information and recommendations set forth herein are believed to be accurate, we make no warranty with respect hereto and disclaim all liability from reliance thereon. “. So they don't assume liability for lying to your face even though that's common on the internet? I've never heard anything credible against climate change and all these claims of noble dissenters is ridiculous. These idiots are paid by big energy to spout lies, they are not questioning unnecessary wars before they happen, they are making a buck on propaganda. The right has gone completely off the rocker in buying into this BS, its obvious that there is big $ to be made by energy companies if we ignore the problem but where do those behind this so called left wing conspiracy get their $ for supposedly making all this up? Do they own all the alternative energy companies in the world? You know I've seen plenty of pictures of climate change at work in cold regions, and if you can't see the difference in the pictures of the receding arctic ice you must have your head up your butt.

Hey Mike Z,

I think you are the one who has your head up your butt..!! The ice is bigger and thicker this year than ever before..!!! approx. 10" thicker to be exact. And the 1 deg. temp. rise of the past 100yrs has been reversed in just 2 winters...? But i can imagine that YOU are the one who can not see the truth. The temp of the ocean has NOT CHANGED one degree, and that my friend is the truth. The ocean has much more to do with global variations that your little piss ant life..not matter how much you wish you had some effect on things...hahaha
get a life

BIll

I need to get a life? Your the one who constantly prattles on about utter BS. Why don't you go post somewhere where they like your brain dead nonsense. The truth you idiot, is that the ice in the arctic is melting further back every summer. You want some proof? How about some images directly from NASA? See here http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17800 and if you insist on spouting BS do it elsewhere.

Seems to me that Pielke, Jr. is missing at least two points.

1) Conservation will be a big part of our reduction in emissions, if we are to succeed in making the necessary reductions.

2) The changes required are not only necessary regardless of global warming, they are good for business.

For anyone who has read Collapse by Jared Diamond, it is blatantly obvious that without a healthy environment, there is not a healthy economy. The most extreme example in the book and most easy to compare is Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

Haiti is the poorest nation in the Caribbean. This is precisely because they trashed the environment. Meanwhile, on the same island, the Dominican Republic has preserved large sections of the Island and has a reasonably healthy environment. The are also among the better economies in the Caribbean.

Similarly, if we trash the environment of the planet, there will not be enough food to feed everyone, nor enough water for everyone. And, there will be the problem of finding homes for and helping the billion climate refugees.

Clearly, in the business as usual environmental management, we will have global civilizational collapse. The world cannot support a billion climate refugees. An eighth of the entire human population would be homeless. That can't be good for business.

Renewable energy on the other hand has been revitalizing rural economies in Europe. There is a lot of money to be made on wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and wave power. There is a lot of money to be made on selling electric cars and LED lighting. Whole new industries will be sparked.

If the U.S. continues to do nothing, these industries will thrive elsewhere since the rest of the world is less willing to watch global civilizational collapse as they sit back and fiddle.

Wake up people!!

Renewables are good for business, our health, our ecosystem on which we depend for our very survival, etc. Let's get with the program and stop whining about how hard it is and just do it.

Misanthropic, Haiti is run by Africans. It is a failed state. Zimbabwe is worse though. Look how Norway is run. #1 according to the UN. Blue eyed blonds. Norway uses hydroelectric power, a renewable resource. We are green.

Olaf,

Haiti is a failed state. I agree with you there. However, it is largely a factor of how they treat the environment rather than who is running it. Jared Diamond makes the comparison between Haiti and the Dominican Republic because the two started in as nearly identical a state as is possible for any two nations. One collapsed, largely due to its handling of precious natural resources. The other did not. We as a world civilization are, IMNSHO, following in the footsteps of Haiti rather than the Dominican Republic. We are not caring for our environment. Here and there, some people are. However, taken as a whole, humanity is not caring for the planet. The results will be disastrous if we do not change our ways on a global scale.

Finally, Olaf, I can't help but notice the similarity in your writing style and points that you make with the likes of Sanchez and Crow. I strongly suspect that you are indeed one person. I have no idea of your race and do not care since race does not matter to me. However, I would state that if you are, as I believe, all one person assuming many names and spewing racism all over this blog, you are not only a bigot, but are also of small mind.

It's funny how racist induhviduals come in all shapes sizes colors and creeds.

I can tell nothing about your race, but can tell a lot about your intelligence, or lack thereof. Why don't you pick one name and stick with it? If you have a point to make, you will do a far better job of it by being honest than by picking assorted names and attempting to make the race or nationality of the name you have chosen look stupid.

Remember Olaf/Crow/Sanchez/NameOfTheWeek, we are all the same regardless of our minor differences in outward appearance. We must all work together to solve some extremely serious problems if we are to avert catastrophe. Wake up and pay attention to the important matters at hand instead of spreading racism and hate.

Predictably, you will now call me a racist for my message of unity. That will merely prove my point about you.

Also, if I am correct about you, you are failing the Turing Test.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

Hey, I hadn't thought of that, perhaps you are also Lucy Lu.

"It's funny how racist induhviduals come in all shapes sizes colors and creeds." Scott, please use spell check next time. It will make your post more creditable. Don't be paranoid, it is only Olaf.

Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.

But despite overwhelming signs of global cooling - China’s coldest winter for 100 years and record snow levels across Northeast America - allied with temperature records showing a decline - global warming advocates still cling to the notion that the world is cooling because of global warming!

"Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said," reports the BBC.

"The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer."

"This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."

The report admits that La Nina and its counterpart, El Nino, are "two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world."

But here we have UN climate scientists admitting that natural climate change contributors have eclipsed the effect of CO2 emissions for the past 10 years, even as carbon belchers like China and India have increased CO2 output at record levels!

Global temperatures have remained reasonably flat since a decline in 1998 and cooling trends are now being observed despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels have increased in the atmosphere.
On the whole, the world is getting colder (see above), which is why "global warming" suddenly became "climate change" when temperature levels since 2003 started to prove the alarmists wrong.

Carbon emissions have never driven climate change because as ice core samples clearly show, carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature increase and not a cause of it, sometimes lagging behind by as much as 800 years.

Olaf,

I always use a spell checker. I've added inDUHvidual to my spell checker deliberately because it often expresses my sentiment quite well.

As for only Olaf, perhaps. But, I remain unconvinced at present. There seems to be quite a pattern here for picking an obvious racial or ethnic name and then claiming that the race is superior to Americans and using language heavily laden with Us and Them type terminology. I think this pattern indicates a single (and not very large) mind behind a number of posts under different names.

In truth, all humans are Us. There is no them. We humans went through a bottleneck 70-80,000 years ago when there were just 3-7,000 people on the entire planet. We do not have a large gene pool and are all very closely related.

So, if you really want to solve problems, start by remembering that we are all Us. We must work together in order to survive.

Personally, I'd be fine with humans not surviving if only we could get ourselves off the planet without taking many other species with us. Since I believe that is not possible, I try to convince humans to work together for our survival.

The Ice Man,

A single La Nina year does not a trend make.

Are you aware that due to the higher albedo of Venus, despite its shorter distance to the sun, less sunlight actually gets through to the surface of Venus than gets through to the surface of Earth. Venus absorbs just 25% of the sunlight that hits it; Earth absorbs 70% of its sunlight.

Without the effects of greenhouse gases the average temperature of the surfaces of the two planets would be Earth: -18 celcius Venus: -41 celcius. With greenhouse gases, especially CO2 in the case of Venus, the average temperatures on the surface of these planets are Earth: +15 celcius and Venus: +430 celcius.

So, if CO2 is enough to cause Venus to go from -41 celcius to +430 celcius, I think it is incredibly obvious that doubling our CO2 will cause severe global warming. Do you see it otherwise? If so, how?

These numbers were taken from the climate science text book ‘Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming’ by S. George Philander.

The Ice Man,

You're correct. At present the sun is indeed stronger than normal in its cycle of fluctuations. There are peer reviewed papers about this.

One such paper claimed that the increased solar radiation was responsible for 5-30% of the current amount of global warming. Most agree on 5-15% of current warming.

That means that we are responsible for at least 70% of the current warming on this planet, more likely 85-95% of the current observed warming.

So, yes, other planets and moons in the solar system would also be warming and indeed are. However, the current warming being probably 85-95% human caused means that even when the solar radiation decreases, we will continue to feel dramatic and catastrophic warming here on earth.

Scott, it is all in our genes. "Selfish dictators may owe their behaviour partly to their genes, according to a study that claims to have found a genetic link to ruthlessness. The study might help to explain the money-grabbing tendencies of those with a Machiavellian streak — from national dictators down to 'little Hitlers' found in workplaces the world over.

Researchers at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem found a link between the gene called AVPR1a selfishness." See everything is in the genes, so if I don't reclye, don't blame me, it is my selfish gene. Bill, if I am gay don't blame me, it is in my genes. There is no longer responsibility. We are FREE at last.

Libertarian,

The nature/nurture debate will rage on indefinitely. Always, there will be new articles on both sides. Always, the conclusion among the intelligent will remain that it is both.

Don't shirk your responsibility and blame your genes. That you know you should recycle means that your genes recognize the truth. If you fail to do so, blame your conscious mind. That you have posted what you did makes that clear.

I'm not sure how or why you put gay in your list. How can there be blame for something that hurts no one? But, let's stay on topic. The topic is CO2.

As for being free, yes. We are all free. And, the vast majority of us have normal functioning morals processing centers in our brains. Use them freely and liberally.

Mike Z: Bill High is a troll, and cares not for truth. He runs on Faux spin. As long as a factoid fits his agenda, it's passed on without examination. Faux generates climate change doubt as if it were a growth commodity, giving the impression to small minds that bald assertion can validly counter long, hard research. Trolls love to be fed. Don't go there.

Misanthropic Scott: Your first point is exactly what Pielke Jr. said, in the article above; just phrased differently. To my reading of it, he doesn't weigh in here on the good-for-business aspect, but let me weigh in on that myself.

Sure, it would be better for the economy in the long run, to adapt to changing realities, rather than overextend a failed energy regime to the point of economic collapse. Yes, they seem to be starting this trend in parts of Europe; in fact they are orders of magnitude ahead of our own pedal-to-the-meddle (sic) attitude toward toward natural resources of all kinds. But don't kid yourself that that's enough to avert catastrophe. If tomorrow we put on the same mantle of dawning awareness, it would be nowhere near an adequate response.

We have ignored, and worsened, the problem for so long, that the only thing that could save us now would be a governments-sponsored Manhattan Project for the planet. Venture capital, the current poster boy for the commercial-solutions camp, doesn't shift regimes or paradigms; it just milks emergent technologies for their riches. Venture capital has a role AFTER governments force business to do the right thing. Otherwise, they cherry-pick the parts of the solution that they can build fast profits from.

There are so many aspects of our systems collapse that need to shift at the same time. Water scarcity. Arable lands depletion/salinization/erosion. Explosive population increase. Fisheries contamination and collapse. Chemical contamination of soil, water, and whole biospheres. Desertification. Wholesale species extinctions on a scale that leads small minds to doubt the plain evidence, simply because "nothing could be that bad." This will shift, eventually, to "How could they have kept lying to us about the problem for so long?" and, "Why didn't the media tell us?" Useless nonsense, once the questions are asked.

And many other issues have not yet received any concerted attention, such as the megatons of "depleted" uranium munitions we've scattered around the Middle East, that are starting to show up there in unlikely clusters of brain cancers. That alone could make Iraq a defacto dead-zone in the future; a toxic field of unprecidented proportions.

Do you really think that for-profit business can or will rise to all of these challenges? No, they can't. And they won't. The capitalist model rises to one challenge at a time, and is limited to those challenges it can make money from. How could anyone make a profit finding spent munitions, or preserving scarce species, outside of government mandates and funding?

And since governments WILL need to mandate and fund such efforts, it's rather brain-dead to let businesses decide how to proceed -- what to save and what not.

Dan,

You make some excellent points. On one thing, I have a minor disagreement with you. I think that going toward a renewable energy economy is not only good for the long term. I think it is good for the short term. I think it will stimulate rather than harm the economy beginning immediately. This has been shown in parts of Europe. I believe parts of rural Ireland (if I remember correctly) are getting a tremendous economic boost from wind energy.

As for the other problems you mention, I agree completely. I'm probably less hopeful than you. I believe we are very likely to go extinct and cause a Permian/Triassic level extinction behind as we go.

We must act as if this is not the case. We must do everything we can as fast as we can in the hope that we have not yet crossed a tipping point towards the anoxic ocean and toxic hydrogen sulfide gas atmosphere that comes with extreme warming. If you're into such things, and from your post it appears you are, read Under a Green Sky by Peter D. Ward.

Here's a link to the paperback which should be out this month.

www.bestwebbuys.com/9780061137921

Anyway, we must act as if we have a chance to solve the problem. Not to do so would be incredibly stupid of our species. Unfortunately, despite a few very intelligent individuals here and there, and a larger number that are at least capable of understanding the truly intelligent, the masses of sheeple will likely prove our species to be incredibly stupid as a whole.

Misanthropic, this is something you would like. Combined with the climatic impact of a regional nuclear war -- which could reduce crop yields and starve hundreds of millions -- Mills' modeling shows that the entire globe would feel the repercussions of a hundred nuclear detonations, a small fraction of just the U.S. stockpile. After decades of Cold War research into the impacts that a full-blown war between the Soviet Union and the United States would have had on the globe, recent work has focused on regional nuclear wars, which are seen as more likely than all-out nuclear Armageddon. Incorporating the latest atmospheric modeling, the scientists are finding that even a small nuclear conflict would wreak havoc on the global environment -- cooling it twice as much as it's heated over the last century -- and on the structure of the atmosphere itself. Hey folks, this is the solution to global warming.

Steve,

I'd heard that before, not to the same level of detail. Small scale nuclear war can combat the effects of global warming. Even being as misanthropic as I am though, I would not suggest this as the silver bullet solution to climate change. Humans are rarely the only animal in a war zone. Further, who knows what other side effects this would have? Not to mention that I'm actually against killing people. I just want to reduce the population through attrition.

Oops. Wait a minute. I just almost got into a legitimate debate about the use of nuclear war as a solution to global warming. Sorry.

Let's all just treat this side topic as the humor that I'm sure Steve intended. Good one Steve.