The deniers put winning their ideological wars ahead of everything, including common sense and their own self interest.

I haven’t a bloody clue as to how we overcome their efforts and make the changes needed, but until I do have it figured out there’s no way I’m giving up my efforts to spread the word and encourage people to vote for the most enlightened candidates and policies possible.

By what context is that an “alarming rate”?

I think:
Is climate change happening? Yes, always being.
Is human species a principal culprit of it? I don’t think so.
Should we stop polluting (in general, not just CO2)? Yes of course.
Is CO2 the principal green house gas? No, it is water vapor.
Are human the principal generators of CO2? I think we aren’t. I think living organisms in general by breathing and decaying, volcanos and released by the oceans produce fare more CO2 and water vapor than we do.

Just put numbers to it.

Are we so powerful that we can change the fate of a planet for good or for bad? Isn’t this hubris?

@Ernesto
‘Just put numbers to it’ : you would do well to follow your own suggestions. What you think is very interesting, but is any of it true? Tossing out mere opinions into a scientific argument itself smells of hubris, methinks.

As for the hubris bit, that’s perhaps -the- question. And what most scientists generally say is, “Yes, it might be hubris: but, in the case that it isn’t — and there’s a fair bit of evidence that supports the possibility that it isn’t — shouldn’t we do our absolute best to protect the planet?”

While you’re busy talking about what you think and what you believe, scientists like Hansen are actually doing research and busy understanding what is going on. What you consider to be hubris is your choice to ignore the reality that mankind has developed the means to impact the entire planet. For example, we can use nukes to destroy all human life on this planet in a very short amount of time. Do you not believe in nukes? Why would our huge amount of pollution be any different? As far as CO2 being a greenhouse gas, it is according to science. Your beliefs don’t change science. Volcanoes and living organisms do create CO2, but until the industrial revolution we were unable to produce more than the oceans and plant life can absorb. Also you are wrong about the ocean producing CO2, it absorbs it, not releases it.

http://bubbanear.blogspot.com/

Because there’s a whole lot of FUD and hysteria about this issue (Hansen’s second email reads more like a polemic than like an hypothesis, for instance), we do need to be very, very careful with data and interpretations. All methods need to be triple-checked and open to public scrutiny, and peer-review is essential. This is how we’ll make sure that the science stays accurate in the face of tremendous economic incentives to dissemble.

Is CO2 the principal green house gas ? It isn’t, but increased levels of CO2 increase the temperature, thereby increasing water vapor concentration through the physical equilibrium with the open wator. So the increase of CO2 is indicrectly, but undeniable related to the increase in the important green house gases, even if itself is not that important. Also, we can control CO2 output, we can not change the H2O vapor pressure, nor the amount of H2O evaporating from the oceans at a given temperature. So: CO2 is an important (indirectly) green house gas.

Are humans the principal generators of CO2. No, they are not. But, of the 100% needed to reach the tipping point, 90% might be from natural sources, but its humans that knowlingly produce the excess 10% CO2 that will reach and overcome the typing points. Aside from which: organisms, oceans, etc first take their carbon from the air (indirectly) via photosynthesis and on average don’t change the concentrations much. Humans increase the total available carbon by emitting previously unaccessible carbon from far below the surface, and don’t take anything out. Only volcanos are a reasonable non-equilibrium source of CO2, but really large erruptions (Pinatubo, St. Helens) that can be seen to affect the climate are rare, and have a time-limited effect in contrast to the smaller, but continuous antropogenic emission of the last 150-200 years.

So is the human species the principal culprit ? They don’t emit most of the green house gasses, but they are responsible for that extra bit that will exceed the tipping points. And, they are the only ones that can consiously do something about it.
Humans are not all-powerful: if the natural balance was not as close to the tipping point, we would not be able to make it reach the tipping point even if we tried. But the distance to the tipping point is not that far, and then “(one) man can make a difference”. Pointing to Hubris in this respect is denying the non-linearity of the world around us, just like the lone skieer denying setting of an avalanche because the avalanche is much bigger then he is.

I feel dirty, just for having read some of that site.

@Ken and Shawn
Ernesto never said CO2 wasn’t a greenhouse gas. He said it wasn’t the -primary- greenhouse gas, but that Water Vapor is. He is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
“The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%…”

He also failed to mention that humans cause less than 5% of all carbon dioxide emissions in the world. http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html

@Shawn
The idea that humans have enough nukes to wipe out the -entire- human population is a myth spread during the cold war. Perhaps we could if the entire human population were crammed into a single, small area… and certainly we could have wiped many major metropolis’ off the map entirely… but thinking that we actually have the means to destroy the planet with nukes overestimenates our own control over Earth.

Again, I reiterate the idea that reducing pollution and recycling and all that jazz is a good thing. But we, as a race, simply cannot reduce our 4% of the CO2 emissions without drastically crippling the economy. Even the most drastic proposed changes to the US emissions would only limit CO2 emissions in this country by 20-30%… and even that would only be a small fraction towards the whole of human emssions. And such changes would cripple us economically. So what can we do? Have some people drive slightly cleaner cars that use 1/3 less gas? Please… the effects would be so insignificant and miniscule that its hardly worth it. So what are all these anti-SUV, anti-oil company proposals really aimed at? Politics. It’s all politics. If we were serious about reducing our 4% of total emissions, even by, say, 1/2 we would have to basically destroy so many powerplants and factories and modern farms as to bring us back to the colonial ages. No one wants that. No politican wants that. They just want money and votes based on scare tactics. That’s what its all about, and to think otherwise is to fool yourself.

So what do we do about it? The Earth is certainly warming, and there is the possibility that it’s us. Our choices, really, are to either go back to the colonial ages… or just forget it. We can hope it’s not us. We can realize that the Earth will adapt to an extra degree or so, since the Earth has been much, much hotter than it is now. We can hope technology catches up soon enough that it will reconcile this “problem,” Or we can delude ourselves and drive around in our Hybrid cars, taxing those driving around in trucks, worrying and losing sleep about an extra few degrees, and blaming everyone else for what is a problem that we all contribute to.

In fact, this is precisely what climate scientists do. The problem is that the media is not terribly interested in delving into the boring details; they want a short and punchy headline. Global warming, like all science, isn’t something that’s dependent on any one measurement, on any single computer model, on any one warm year– the science is a picture that’s built up of thousands of measurements.

The media hype, however, wants to exaggerates it. The global warming deniers work to hype one direction, but the media hype primarly wants headlines, either direction– it’s the extremes that interest them, not the sober analyses. A friend of mine, a quite intelligent guy, asked the other day “What would you say that the consensus of climate scientists is on what percentage of climate variation is human induced? 90 percent?” Good God, no! The correct answer is that the contribution of human-induced warming to global climate is *detectable*! It’s measurably getting larger, but somehow the conclusion “we can detect it” has mutated into “90 percent” in the public imagination.

Addressing just two points, you mention that water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas. Well, yes, but water vapor goes in and out of the atmosphere based on evaporation and precipitation. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a RESULT of global temperature, not a prime cause. It is a feedback effect (one of many).

Second you say “Are human the principal generators of CO2? I think we aren’t. ” This depends; do you mean net carbon dioxide, or flux? Plants cycle carbon dioxide both in and out of the atmosphere; likewise carbon dioxide goes both into and out of solution in the oceans. These are both high fluxes, but the net generation is very little. Fossil fuel burning, on the other hand, puts about 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year– to put that in perspective, it’s the equivalent of about a cubic kilometer of coal burned per year.

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm has a brief tutorial on the carbon cycle.

The overall summary is that global temperature varies, and the variation has both human-induced and natural components. The natural components vary both directions, while the human-induced climate variation sums up to a continuous change in one direction, upward. No single hot summer, or warm winter, is significant, but the long-term trend is warming, and there’s enough data to show that this long term trend is due to human-induced greenhouse effect, not solar variations (which produce a different signature of warming vs altitude) or statistical noise.

But, do try to filter out the media hype in both directions. It’s not the end of the world; it’s not the cause of every single hurricane tsunami monsoon flood drought or failed harvest, and the ice caps aren’t going to be gone by next year. And, on the other hand, a cold winter in one place, a cooler than average summer another place, or fewer than average numbers of hurricanes another year, doesn’t “disprove” global warming either. In the long term, on the worldwide average, the cliimate is getting warmer, over a time scale of decades.

You think this issue is important? You want to convince more people?

Stop calling them ‘deniers’, it creates a divisive dichotomy that turns away more people. And you weren’t going to turn the shills anyway.

Address the issues.

As an example, consider this criticism of the use of Stevenson Screens. It seems to make some compelling points. So, what do the graphs look like if we use satellite data instead of the surface data? Note that this is a perfectly reasonable question. Shout at me and I’ll think you have something to hide.

If you think this is an important issue, you need to consider how your action are being received by those who are still looking at both sides. Treat me with respect and we can engage in discourse, maybe you can convince me. Yell at me and call me names and I’ll question both your judgment and your conclusions. This applies just as much to other people who are already so turned off that they don’t bother to reply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

And those of you who like to throw out “denier” as an epithet: Find another religion.

Luc’s central point is a critical one — that humans may exert only a small influence on the climate, but the natural balance itself is so near this ‘tipping point’ that human influence can be just enough to disrupt the balance; plus, it’s the only contribution that is potentially changeable. But let’s get back to that point in a moment.

I think that for GW skeptics, one point of contention is a disbelief that human activity can so greatly influence the climate. In a sense, Luc’s response suggests they are not totally misguided — in fact, they’re somewhat right. Human activity exerts a small influence. The issue, as Luc frames it, is that even this small influence may be too much. That’s a fair point, and one that GW skeptics should not readily dismiss.

A second issue of contention is how much our influence can truly be remediated. We hear a lot of mixed messages; there are those who simply want to encourage more aggressive “green” behavior — the whole reuse/recycle/etc principle. There are others who shout, no, that’s all just a meaningless salve, that we need to take DRAMATIC action NOW!

What is less clear from the more dire voices is, what action? Specifically?

It seems unlikely that human civilization will suddenly drop its reliance on technology and all that entails. Is scaling back from 10% to 8% sufficient to avoid this ‘tipping point’ and the potential consequences? Or do people expect civilization to scale back to zero percent? Is this even possible?

Again, as someone willing to listen to all arguments, it is difficult to parse the alarmists’ call for radical action now — because it is unclear what they specifically want to happen. We hear a lot of talk of electing ‘more enlightened politicians’ and such, but boots on the ground, what radical actions are they looking for?

It is unfortunate that such a moralistic element has entered this debate, framing those who haven’t completely signed on to this vaguely defined ‘radical action’ as somehow murderers of the future. Let’s be more specific. It seems a lot easier to chant than to outline specific courses of actions and policies which are both feasible and effective, socially, politically, and scientifically.

Finally, an existential point. It is one thing to fear that climate change could lead to an environment unsuitable for survival of humans and other species. It is another to suggest that climate change is “harming the planet”. The planet itself could not care less what its climate is. For any given climate X, a set of organisms Y will adapt and thrive, and a set of organisms Z will fail and vanish. Such is the way of the universe.

The prediction for global warming over the next century is between 2 and 5 degrees which means at the current rate the worst cast prediction has the majority of wilderness life extinct by the end of the century if we do not take action to curb our greenhouse gas emitions. It’s not the most likely event, but it’s a lot like crossing the street. Sure you’re still not too likely to get hit by a care if you don’t look both ways, but hey why risk it if you don’t have to?

It doesn’t matter whether “human the principal generators of CO2″, what matters is there is a more than obvious change in CO2 content in the atmosphere. Unless there were notable more non-noticed volcano eruptions and other CO2 sources in the last 150 years, its a good guess that humans are responsible. Yes, even for those changes that are caused by living organisms, because humans also had a big impact on them.

Now, all other factors being equal, more CO2 means it must be getting warmer. But are all factors the same? Here your friend “water vapor” comes to play. Because when it gets warmer, you get more water vapor, when you get more water vapor, its getting warmer. That’s called a positive feedback loop.

To conclude: when humans increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, its getting warmer - and by more than just the net effect from the CO2. Pretty easy to understand once you stop to resist thinking about it.

Also, global climate change to me seems very irrelevant. The climate shift in the arctic is melting ice that is drifting into the atlantic and disrupting the North Atlantic Current which is causing temperature decreases in europe causes a net affect of 0… Does that mean that nothing is happening or changing in the world. NO!

Now this is what i believe… we set forces into motion that we can’t change, the solutions don’t lie in stopping oil companies or CO2 emissions but falls on the brightest minds of all the world to attempt to think out of the box and solve and fix how much water vapor is in the atmosphere without disrupting all the rest of the world, or figuring out how to deal with this impending doom. I support Science and i support humanity and its ability to live with anything that is thrown in our way. The key is to make this not a political issue, but a realization that change is in order. From what we use, how we pollute, who we blame, when we stop blaming, how we heat our homes, and how we live our lives. The way we live our lives will change just as it changed during the last ice age, during the crusades or the industrial revolution. Hopefully with less death, a nyc not under water (as it is where i live), and less religion. Put your money into science, and let your beliefs translate into your life and how you live them.

Thank you for listening,
_d

Even if you don’t believe humans are causing dangerous climate change to the globe, WHAT IF you are wrong? What’s the point of trying to stop people from reducing pollution and waste? Oh right, breathing in tailpipe when you walk down the street is fun…. sheesh.

Having lived in Pittsburgh, PA during the 1950’s, clean the soot from the steel mills off of your vehicles every morning, one has an understanding of pollution, and cleaning up the mess has been with us for a long time. Government hasn’t cleaned it up yet, why do you think that they are going to do it now?

Someone needs to answer the question of what the Climate Status-Quo is. Being it is agreed that the Climate changes, and always will, why are so many people into this self flagellation? We bad, We bad. Get over it, start at home. How much “power” is used on you HDTV remote control? Do you think it is off when you turn it off?

Just remember, people always want laws that stop someone else from doing something they do think they should be doing. I never want a law to stop me from doing something I shouldn’t be doing.

JAB

Oneguy: If you spend a little time on this website — or buy my book — you’ll see any solution laid out in its basic essence: We need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions over the next several decades through a combination of energy efficiency, low-carbon energy, and possibly carbon capture and storage (see next post). The longer we wait to start, the more expensive and difficult the effort will be. If we wait too long (i.e. don’t start in the next decade), we risk crossing a point of no return leading to harsh outcomes that Hansen describes (including, ultimately, much higher sea levels, widespread droughts, species extinction, ocean acidification, and the like).

Steve: I’m not sure what your point is in siting the Vostok data, which clearly shows the link between CO2 and temperature — and that we are pushing CO2 far outside the bounds seen for several hundred thousand years and therefore will likely push global temperatures ( and sea levels) dangerously beyond those bounds. Yes, the graphs show that the climate has cooled and warmed in the past, usually triggered by changes in the Earth’s orbit which have then been amplified by carbon cycle feedbacks. Now human emissions appear to be the trigger replacing orbital changes, and Hansen’s argument is that we are near tipping points that will push the planet toward catastrophic climate change.

Nathan: You are citing 10 year old data. The satellite data was in fact mis-analyzed for more than 10 years (by someone who was one of the leading skeptics/denyers in the world). It now fully supports the land data. There is so much overwhelming evidence around the planet for climate change that changing the numbers at a few US stations simply makes no difference. Does quoting ten-year-old studies that have long been debunked make you a “Denyer”? Not in my book. But if you were to persist in ignoring the most credible up-to-date research in an effort to confuse the issue, that would, at least to me.

I fully understand that most people are not in a position to adjudicate arguments among scientists. That is precisely why the nations of the world created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so the thousands of top scientists in the world could review all of the data and issue summary reports. People who refuse to accept the work of those scientists — and especially those who keep repeating long-debunked arguments — are who I call Denyers. That is my short-hand. The Denyers have their shorthand for people like me and Hansen — alarmists. I don’t really mind that term — as I made clear in my book, anyone who reviews the scientific literature and talks to any significant number of leading climate scientists, is going to become very alarmed.

“as I made clear in my book” - Joe

How about we take the money trail out of the climate, then we get rid of the “alarmist” and disarm the “deniers”, and the scientists can do their work.

And how dare we, mere mortals, think we can make rational decisions about controlling the climate, but I deny again.

I am an MIT-trained physicist who did physical oceanography research on the Greenland Sea the The Scripps Institution of Oceanography — for what it’s worth. This is not, however, meant to be a website aimed at scientific types, since such a website already exists.

Byrdlip — not sure what you mean by your final line — we mere mortals already all our dramatically changing the climate through deforestation and the unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases. The question is whether we want to take action to minimize our impact, or ruin the planet for the next 50 generations.

As an MIT-Trained scientist, you know before you solve a problem, you must define and understand the problem. I have yet to see a problem definition, other then “the climate is changing and we caused it.”

We are in an interglacial period, it is suppose to warm up.

I would like to see a study on the amount of CO2 in a can of beer and one exhalation of a human being. That would be an interesting, if un-important result.

I went to several “carbon foot print” calculators, and I was way above average. But none of them asked where I lived, how many trees I had on the property, how many plants were on the property. Seems like if you don’t live in the concrete junks of a big city, then you are not normal. But I deny.

Support Global warming - drink beer.

Taken out of context, the left could say this about the right and climate change while the right could say this about the left and the Iraq war. Whatever the right answer is, Hansen obviously allows a lot of passion to enter his arguments which can be very convincing to some and a stumbling block to others.

Iur current warm interglacial period has lasted much longer than interglacials typically do, and many scientists believe that absent human activity, we would be going back into another Ice Age. We know why the previous ice ages ended — they were “forced” to end by a change in our orbit and inclination and subsequent feedbacks (albedo and GHGs). We know why the planet is warming now — human activity.

We are pouring CO2 into the atmosphere at more than 100 times the fastest pace in his ever increased in the geologic record. If we warm another 2°C to 3°C, then we will return the planet to the temperature it had when sea levels were 80 feet higher. This is the main reason Hansen and I are so impassioned.

That being said….. Can anyone tell us why it got so much colder between the mid 1930s and 1970?

It just seems odd to me that we blame something (CO2) for the rise from 1970 to 2007 but the logic used to to blame (CO2) seems to have to ignore the data from 1930 to 1970.

Just wondering if anyone has the short answer.

Studies suggest that even during the last interglacial (116,000-130,000 years ago), when temperatures were thought to be 5C warmer than today, the ice persevered, keeping the delicate samples entombed and free from contamination and decay.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 6276576.stm

I still don’t know which way we are going….

“Cold, hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims”, etc.

Odd that Timo asks …

“Should we ignore the fact that results and conclusions drawn from “scientific” studies contradict one another with shocking frequency, leaving us to wonder whom we should believe?”

The scientific process will be about debate and disagreement. It seems the problem starts when the non-technical public thinks they understand what is behind the debate on the basis of a 10 min. TV piece. And also when self serving scientists and those that pay them muddy the waters with fragmented attacks on small pieces of research.

We worry too much - the earth will adjust just fine. Of course lots of life may find it hard to survive in the process.

I wonder … if a computer simulation of that bridge in MN had shown a high probability of failure under certain conditions, how much time would have passed with people arguing about the assumptions and the conditions under which the result was simulated ?

I would like to reiterate oneguy’s call for more concrete directives on how we may go about fixing this problem, to the extent we can. Reduce/reuse/recycle is obviously a starting point, but I don’t know how realistic it is for developing, third-world countries who either need to sell their resources (such as trees) to earn an income or use cheap fuel to jump-start their industrial systems. Have there been studies regarding what percentage of the carbon output comes from countries where consumption is more variable versus those in which it is necessary for their economic growth? I know the average American’s footprint is likely much higher than the average Chinese person, but there are 4 people in China for every one in America.

Any steps to remedy human carbon output will need to take into account a complex world in which the solution for one region or country could be much different from others. If most your population can’t afford to eat, it is unlikely you will require any businesses looking to set up factories to pay high carbon taxes just to avert a disaster 100 years from now. Not that it isn’t important, it just isn’t a priority the same way money and food is. And the politicians don’t live that long.

-Mike

I am appalled at the pompousness of anyone who thinks that humans can actually change the climate. Yep, its all about us, isnt it. How the hell did those fossilized sea critters get embedded in those rocks in my back yard at almost 1000 feet elevation in a southeastern alluvial plain? Uh huh, yes, that’s right, it was all once under an ocean. May be again soon. We will either figger out how to survive or we wont. I expect it will be some of both.

We could save the planet today, and the sun could blow up tomorrow (figuratively speaking, but still possible in that stars do blow up and our Earth and the environment wouldn’t be too well off, but there isn’t much we can currently do about that).

The globe is warming, it is true. The amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. Carbon Dioxide does have tendency to act like a “green house”. But, there isn’t a great consensus among scientists (nor non-scientists for that matter) as Al Gore would have many believe. There are qualified scientists out there that have some interesting things to say against the Global Warming hysteria (despite Gore’s “consensus” among the scientists). Maybe somebody lied or maybe they all understand a part of the very complex puzzle.

I have some questions concerning the “Global Warming” situation:
* Isn’t the sun the most dominating factor in the earths climate?
* Doesn’t water have more influence than Carbon Dioxide?
* If the average temperature rises, won’t more water evaporate?
* Won’t more water in the atmosphere as clouds block the sun, having a cooling effect to counter balance the warming? (I felt the cooling effect of a cloud of water blocking the sun, but not the heating effect of a cloud of Carbon Dioxide trapping the sun’s energy)
* Carbon Dioxide levels rise, the temperature rises, “correlation isn’t causation” or “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, right?
* Aren’t there many unknown variables that are involved in the climate that we just don’t understand or have enough research yet to make a decisive conclusion? (e.g. climate is a complex system)
* What is the relationship between Carbon Dioxide levels and temperature? Is it linear, exponential, logarithmic? Extreme environmentalists make it sound as if it is exponential, but if it is logarithmic wouldn’t excessive Carbon Dioxide be much less damaging than some say it would?
* When extrapolating from a data set and saying that the average temperature will be at about Y degrees by year X and therefore such and such will happen (ten feet of water in New York, ice caps gone, etc.), isn’t that some what unreliable?

Those are some questions I can think of and I probably have more I can’t remember. But, my current view of things is skeptical of the “sky is falling” hysteria and the “there is nothing wrong” stand point. It seems that CO2 is a common molecule and therefore strange to label it as pollution (plants like CO2, it’s like a fertilizer). The religious zeal and politics should leave the science alone, they will only lead to corrupt science supporting their position. And finally, Al Gore and the Extreme Environmentalists should consider cessation of respiration as a possible emission cut back (or maybe just less hype flaming the fire, than actually ceasing breathing).

1. if human activity is to blame for global warming, and if global warming will in fact have all the dire consequences we are told by the like of Al Gore and Davod Suzuki, then i will gladly drastically change the way i live, whatever it costs.

2. it will cost a lot. (do i have to elaborate?)

3. but the shrill messages i get from global warming fascits sounds remakably similar to all the other fear mongers i’ve ever run into in my life (religion, investments, life insurance, vacuum cleaners, etc.) they all have a vested interest in getting me to do something, and if i do it and it turns out to be the wrong thing, i pay, not them.

in particular, the Koyoto treaty seems not to do much good for climate change, but simply to transfer huge sums of money from the developed world to the undeveloped world. a worthy goal perhaps, but one should say so explicitly.

4. so i am being prudent when i demand good explanations, good science, and high integrity. if you want me to essentially move into a tent and turn into a vegan, you have a duty of care to give me the truth.

5. when i read the CV’s of a great many prominent scientists, at the top of their disciplines, that tell me “There is no scientific consensus on Climate Change”, i am only being prudent to expect the Global Warming crowd to answer the objections point-by-point.

please see the National Post website of their “deniers” series.
http://www.canada.com/ nationalpost/ environment/ story.html?id=4432a41c-7c52-4b74-934e-f0dac3b2bcb8
(or just go to www.nationalpost.com and search for “deniers”)

6. instead, all it get is more polemic.

Many of you repeat the same questions that have been asked and answered many times — here is a very good resource that answers most of them.
http://climateprogress.org/ 2007/ 06/ 27/ 26-climate-myths-debunked

To those who are really interested in becoming more informed on the subject, I hope you will bookmark this website and, for the more technically inclined, visit RealClimate.org

No these scientists were not “the same ones who were warning of the approach of the next ice age back in the seventies,” because the notion that scientists were warning of an imminent ice age back in the seventies is an urban myth that has been actively promoted by global warming opponents. Check your sources on this; you’ll find that they never seem to cite any actual scientific papers–they all cite an article from Newsweek. Why not cite the scientists? Because the scientists weren’t actually saying that at all back in the ’70’s. Newsweek got it wrong (or perhaps chose to exaggerate to sell magazines).

Again, speaking as one without any a priori bias toward one “side” or another, it is my impression that many advocates of change in an effort to diminish climate change are poor political strategists. It seems wildly counterproductive to attempt to “sell” your point of view by berating and belittling skeptics and “deniers”. Although this has not been a major problem in our discussion here today, it is quite common elsewhere throughout this discussion.

Aside from purely irrational people, most voices on any side of a debate are basing their position on a set of priorities, and protecting particular interests. Quite often, different interests come into genuine conflict: for example, averting climate deterioration is good, but preserving wealth and economic well-being is also good. People can be genuinely concerned that one of those might sacrifice the other. Perhaps they are wrong, perhaps they are right, but that doesn’t make their concern stupid or motivated by malice.

If you want to persuade someone toward a certain end, it is helpful to appeal to their interests.

It seems that a major goal of those who want to lessen climate change is to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. OK. If a skeptic does not “buy” into the consequences of climate change, how will you convince them to support a reduction in fossil fuel use? Unfortunately, it seems that the most common answer these days is to yell at them, brand them as ignorant republicans, and so on. This is a recipe for failure.

Why not focus on other incentives? Reducing use of fossil fuels and investing in alternative energies at home will put money back in the pockets of countrymen and remove it from hostile populations. There is a huge upside here, one that is incredibly attractive to the political right, even if they never “believe” in climate change issues. Of course these arguments have been promoted, but they need to do be much more so. If you want people to find common ground for a particular behavior, find a reason that appeals to them.

Too many ideologues concerned with climate change care too much that their “opponents” come around and agree with them. Do you want action or do you want consensus? The two need not be the same thing. You can motivate people to move in the direction you want, for reasons that differ from yours. It could be much more successful than moralizing.

But we are acting at opposite ends, we “want” to stop burning fossil fuels, so we make ethyl alcohol to burn in our cars, we are doing good. In order to make ethyl alcohol, we create CO2 at twice the rate of ethyl alcohol. In order to solve the problem, we make the problem worse.

Trees use CO2 to make oxygen, please see the quote on cutting down the rain forests, I live in North America, there