Waiting for what, 'most climate scientists'? If you want to wait till all agree, hell would be frozen over. Out of ten major scientific organizations nine have reached a consensus thats good enough. It's fine that some disagree but you don't not do anything because ten percent disagree. When ninety percent agree you start working at fixing the problem. To demand one hundred percent is completely ludicrous. You will never get one hundred percent of any group on the face of this planet to agree on anything.
If nine out of ten doctors say you have cancer are you going to ignore it because one disagrees? Somehow I don't think you would.

Well, that's very true. But in this situation, none of them have really determined that the patient really has cancer. There are alot of "may happens" and "maybes", but they can't even predict symptoms accurately. And in that regard, it would be rather stupid to begin Chemotherapy and other harsh cancer treatments without a true proper diagnosis. The same works in this case as well.

[quote=August]Good point.

Lowering our dependence on oil and develop alternative sources is what we shall do.
And then, hope for the best.

Oh, we forgot peakoil. :hmm:

Where did you get none of them have really determined?
I don't see a 'may happen' or 'maybe' diagnosis in there. In this case as in the cancer you ignored the majority because you didn't want to hear you had cancer. You read what you wanted to read, not what is there.
The one divided organization/doctor is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists so you have about 9.5 out of 10 doctors saying you have cancer. I'd say it's time for treatment.

Well I'm not so sure you are just concerned anymore. You act like a posessed man on this forum. Like any of us here have the power to give you what you want. You work incredibly hard here trying to prove something which you will not be able to. The US NAS comment in itself is in doubt. I have noted and read other scientists who disagree. And even NASA itself a couple of months back noted it's own data has some errors in it. So to you, are these people in these few organizations the final word? Is everyone in those groups in total allegiance to the message? I'm unconvinced. If they told you to jump off the nearst bridge because they think so.....and they are all in agreement..would you? Don't you question and think for yourself? Do you observe the environment around you or do you just google up articles by left-wing organizations and organizations which make dubious types of claims about ...."everyone is in agreement"...when they're not. If you read the articles Fish posted, even they themselves don't sound too sure (Schlesinger notes that his work is probable in regards to the links to man) That doesn't sound too sure to me. And he's a supposed leader in his field. Looks like you will now ignore him since he's not totally saying what you want or how you want. You are not looking for truth. You are not questioning anything. It's actually your fanatacism which brings more doubt in my mind. You drive me further from your message with every post. People always become furiously determined, and crazy like when they try to push "the big lie".

The problem here is that you don't want to cure the patient. You want to kill the patient that may have nothing wrong with it. Your side is like the 18th century doctors that used to throw leeches on everybody, even when they had a case of the sniffles. In effect..killing the patient. You don't take drastic actions on trends. Especially when you have historically seen reversals that nobody can explain. That also makes some of the voices you present suspect. Any scientist I know (not google) don't work like that. Motives? Including those at the National Academy? Even Michael Schlesinger admits it indirectly. And there are major inconsistincies in regards to the policies derived from the mixed data. Like the exemptions in Kyoto for some of the worst polluters out there. The funny thing is, you can't answer most of those inconsistincies. And how the major water carriers don't live the lifestyle they advocate. BTW, how do you live? Do you drive a car? Do you burn fossil fuels? If so, why? You're killing the planet. How much electricity per day do you burn typing on this forum. Do you actually do anything real to push your cause, or do you just plant your rear-end in front of a forum that has no ability to enact your "concerns for your grandchildren"?

The funny thing is I do actually support the research into alternative energy. Partly because I'm sick of feeding the Middle East with money. I hope they continue, and they get my support to do it. But you're dreaming if you think fossil fuels are going away anytime soon. I think eventually we will reduce the amount, but not totally eliminate it. And still, we won't be dead. And the Earth will continue to spin on it's axis. I'm very happy that most national governments will not listen to you...the draconian extreme element that wants to upset the balance of humanity over something that cannot be proven reasonably.

I take major scientific organizations over what? A couple of for hires you keep throwing up who have been discredited time and again on this thread.
There isn't one major scientific organization that you can name that backs your beliefs, not one but you think you know more than them. Go ahead. Believe what you want to believe. You already proved you read what you want to see not whats there and then freak when your attention is brought to it. If you ever find a major scientific organization that backs you up let me know. We both know you won't.
This shows you've lost. When you get this idiotic you know you've lost.
Further discussion is pointless I think.

Actually, they haven't been discredited. Nor have any other voice of opinion on the matter that doesn't think we're all going to die. And yes, every single scientific organization cannot prove the link adequately to man-made warming. I question alot of the voices from proponent orgazniation and think many are political in nature. Why? Because they themselves are inconsistent. They themselves show many different discrepencies, and changes in their own data over time. Let's see some of the stuff that NAS says 2 years from now. I bet it will change. How many warming cultists pointed to increasing hurricanes as a sign of our impending global warming doom? Where were the hurricanes this year? Can you answer that? No you can't. Is there any reason why they don't even address their own innacuracies in these predictions? Well yes. Because they themselves don't know, can't predict weather patterns from year to year...month to month, and therefore cannot truly see what climate changes, fluctuations etc. we'll see in 10, 15, or 20 years. They have been wrong for the last 30 years in predicting massive global cooling and other matters of environmental scares. There are specific reasons why I remain a skeptic. This is not a political matter as much as it is a matter of scientific method. You want to destroy or radically alter our nation, and world using trends that can't be forecast accurately. Doing that may actually create more problems than you want to fix. And implementing radically all that new technology will take time, and it will be risky if done all at once. And expensive. And dare I say, the fabrication of all this new solar, wind, hydro, etc. equipment will probably emit megatons of the emissions you're so afraid of. Another thing that any thinking person should look at is the historical contexts of fluctuations throughout multiple centuries. I will never allow anybody to simply dismiss that data, or just simply explain it away without question so cheaply. The fact that many of these scientists give themselves a liferaft of credibility by saying key words like "maybe", "possibly" and others for when things look different from their own predictions show that they are often skeptical of their own results. Therefore, I take the National Academy's comments about "everyone agrees with man-made warming theories" as not very credible. I will listen to what they have to say. But I still think they leave alot of questions unanswered.

In addition to this, I think it is very relevant how you yourself live. What type of car you drive, and if you yourself burn fossil fuels considering what you propose hysterically is very relevant. I know Al Gore ain't alone. Also, what business do you have owning, much less operating a computer? How did that computer get to your desktop? Was the fabrication of it without greenhouse emissions? How about the fabrication of your car? Even if a hybrid? When they were built, was there any emissions from the production of it? Of course there was. How about thef abrication and processing of the materials alone, before manufacturing even starts? How about shipping those things to your door? Was fossil fuel not burnt to get it to your door? Does that not make you part of the problem if you own those things? Do you grow your own food? Or do you go to the grocery store? Does the food at a grocery store just magically appear? Or does it have to be trucked in. In refrigerated cars no less? Does that not make you part of the problem? Or are you...bradclark1 specially exempt.....and arrogantly dismissive of all other people who live in our world? You can leave the topic if you wish. I'm not going anywhere. I know it's wrong not to question the hysteria of people in this movement, pushing for things before the matter is adequately solved. They have not done this to many people's satisfaction. I certainly am for alternative energy myself. But you harcore enviro's hurt the push for it more than you help. Regular folks are normally turned off by such brutish fanatacism.

Of course it is, once you get asked the truly relevant and tough questions.

Actually it's not idiotic to ask questions. But you fear these questions, because it's a splash of reality for you. Our world cannot afford what you want. You buy wholesale supposed facts you accept without any thinking on your part, or questioning of any data. I'm not looking for confirmation from scientific organizations, like you seem to be. I'm looking for them to prove their gloom and doom predictions and it's foundations in man-made sources. And they are not doing a very good job of convincing me and many others. You take it by the spoonful and refuse to actually think for yourself. I admit, I don't have a meteorology background. Other than knowing what I have to know to be a pilot. But I do have a BS in an engineering background, and in my Master's program had to study some coursework in organic chemistry, specifically the nature of hydrocarbons. Doesn't make me an expert in any way, but I know that you have to look at data in a certain way. And once discrepencies show up, you need to address it and ask why. What are your credentials that enable you to be so dismissive? What have you acheived in the field of climate science that makes you such an expert? And gives you the know how in interpreting any of the data fielded by any of these people? What meteorological programs have you taken that makes you think any of their data is actually any good? Especially since 30 years of predictions have not shown very great accuracy.

firewood to the discussion:
to
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=7226

Anyway, while discussing the eventual global warmig, we start with protecting measures.

My vilage has a 500 meters weak spot in the dunes, waterstaat (the organisation for waterworks) made the dicision to fix that.

The first pic is made at the end of the summerseason, the first dragline is starting to remove the top layer to reuse later (plant seeds).
http://aycu30.webshots.com/image/337...5899768_th.jpg

The second post is made from the roof of Huis Ter Duin a big hotel.
(the first pic was made near the yellow cabin a litle left and below the middle of the pic.

http://aycu08.webshots.com/image/333...7237768_th.jpg

And a drawing about what they have in mind.

http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/325...8642548_th.jpg

Vessel pressing sand to the shore.

http://aycu02.webshots.com/image/305...1207389_th.jpg

Spreading.

http://aycu32.webshots.com/image/308...2116185_th.jpg


Putting the basaltblocs in place.

http://aycu05.webshots.com/image/326...5215648_th.jpg

The head of the new dike is visual here.

http://aycu09.webshots.com/image/317...0649881_th.jpg

I thought this was interesting. I'm sure it's not all inclusive either, but it outlines more than a century of climate disaster hysteria and how none of it came true.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...fireandice.asp

Hey, has this video been posted yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

Basically it uses clear, and generally sound non-scientific reasoning to answer the climate change question... simplifying the debate and not dealing with the overall situation.

I think the current popular argument about climate change is missing missing the mark on both sides. It certainly lacks perspective. Humans have a definite impact on the environment. In science, every action has a consequence - some great, some small. But nothing has no result. Global warming is not a new idea. To hear it politicized on the news you'd think it was just discovered last month. At the same time, it's specious to say that every climatic change is a dramatic one that directly results from the presence of one form of life. There is considerable disagreement as to whether evolution is largely a "baby step" or a "giant leap" process. There are plenty of examples of both kinds.

Man does have a pronounced effect on the natural environment, but, that said, I think it's too easy to argue about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. Unfortunately, it seems that most discussion of "saving the earth" only has meaning to people in terms of their beach houses or gas prices. It's not the earth we should be concerned about - it's us. Applying the word "catastrophic" to natural processes is a laughably arrogant attitude - as arrogant as assuming the universe isn't big enough for more than one life-filled planent or as arrogant as atheism. But I digress. Catastrophic climate change would only be catastrophic for us. Mother Nature can look after herself quite well with or without us. The earth always keeps its balance one way or another; it is a holistic system of which we are one of many expendable components. We may be unique but we are not irreplaceable.

Oil is a finite resource - unless you consider that it never goes out of production and that in a few million years the peat-rich eastern third of my state alone will produce trillions more barrels of it. The trick, obviously, is not to burn up the barrels we have and then have to wait for the earth to restock. Sea levels have risen, yes - but on the other hand they've always risen and fallen and will probably continue to do that as long as the earth remains a planet. Ice ages come and go - as does all life.

In other words, it ain't just about the weather. In my opinion, Man will not be around as long as his current ecosystem; however, if we want to try to extend our longevity, we should be concerned about more subtle factors than fossil fuel or sea levels - disease for one. Virii and bacteria are evolving, too, with direct and indirect input from us. They are far more sophisticated than they seem, we know less about them than most people think, and these meek but resilient little buggers might indeed inherit the earth. Overpopulation is another factor. It makes no difference if the sea level rises a hundred feet if a population exceeds its ecosystem's carrying capacity first. At our current rate of increase, we'll starve to death long before we have to worry about "catastrophic" climate change.

Then, of course, there's always the possibility of a comet or a 10-mile-wide asteroid....

Anyhow. I just think a little wisdom is worth more than the fortune we have ammassed in knowledge.

NASA says Arctic does an about face on circulation levels.......

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

Doesn't bode well for the "climate disaster" crowd at all. This isn't what the enviros predicted would happen here. In other words, skepticism on global doom and gloom is totally warranted.