Is the Sun Causing Global Warming?

[red states rule]

Thats a good point. Gas guzzling vehicles should be banned, and i support that. Why?. Because they dont only affect the driver. They make us more dependent on foreign oil, and regardless of what party you are affiliated with, we must end our dependance on foreign oil, period.

All we have to do is let the oil companies do what they do best

Deliever their final product to the market

There is plenty of oil within our own contry

 

[Hamiltonian]

I hear that if you pay Al Gore to offset your carbon emmissions, he does it by killing people, thus preventing them from breathing out carbon dioxide.

 

[red states rule]

I hear that if you pay Al Gore to offset your carbon emmissions, he does it by killing people, thus preventing them from breathing out carbon dioxide.

Al takes the money from the suckers, eh - his customres - and gets the worthless offsets from his own company

Offsets are another way libs fool people inton thinking they actually care about the enviroment

 

[red states rule]

What I find to be the most amusing is wondering how liberals are going to talk around their global warming hysteria when nothing happens. These are the same kooks that predicted another ice age back in the 70's, and now they're trying to revise history and say global warming will cause an Ice Age

 

[maineman]

I agree with RSR (mark this rare occasion).

what sort of smoke are YOU trying to blow? You voted for him as your favorite poster!

 

[wiggles]

What I find to be the most amusing is wondering how liberals are going to talk around their global warming hysteria when nothing happens. These are the same kooks that predicted another ice age back in the 70's, and now they're trying to revise history and say global warming will cause an Ice Age

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/quat_res_1972.html

G.J. Kukla, R.K. Matthews & J.M. Mitchell, Quaternary Research, 2, 261- 9, 1972: "The end of the present interglacial"
Quaternary research, volume 2, number 3, 1972 is devoted to the topic "The end of the present interglacial", and is thus a very useful source for these discussions.

The papers, and the editorial, are not entirely self-consistent (as is to be expected) and selective quotation could be used to support any number of viewpoints. Here I will try to give an accurate account of the intent of the volume (this will be slightly difficult, as I have no intention of reading the entire thing), as quote as much as my weary fingers allow.

This is a revised version; read the original if you want to see the changes. The revision occurred after the brief return to fame of this volume when it was quoted by Berger and Loutre in Science in 2002. I'll comment on B+L at the end.
Structure of the volume
The November 1972 of Quaternary Research was devoted to papers presented at a conference held in January, titled "The present interglacial: how and when will it end?". It says "the papers in this volume are an outgrowth of the working conference". Kukla, Mathews and Mitchell were the guest editors for the volume.

The contents are:

261-269: Editorial: Kukla, Mathews, Mitchell
270-273: Quaternay Hypsithermals: Emiliani
274-282: Interglacial and postglacial climates: the pollen record: Wright
283-302: Climatology of a glacial cycle: Fairbridge
303-314: past and present glaciological reponses to climate in eastern baffin island: Andrews, Barry, Bradley, Miller, Williams
315-322: Appraisal of the future climate of the holocene in the rocky mountains: Richmond
323-326: Diatom evidence bearing on the holocene in the south atlantic
327-334: Holocene interglacial in central europe and its land snails: Lozek
335-226: Freshwater ostracods in holocene cycle: Absolon
337-340: Holecene interglacial migrations of mammals and other vertebrates: Shultz
341-349: When will the present interglacial end?: Morner
350-354: Northeast atlantic post-eemian palaeoceanography: a predictive analog of the future: Mcintyre, Ruddiman
355-362: The significance of calcium carbonate oscillations in eastern equatorial atlantic deep-sea sediments for the end of the holocence warm period: Hays, Perruzza
363-367: Climatic record in north atlantic deep-sea core v23-82: comparison of the last and present interglacials based on quantitative time series: Sancetta, Imbrie, Kipp, Mcintyre, Ruddiman
368-373: Dynamics of the ocean-cryosphere system: barbados data: Matthews
374-383: End of the last interglacial in the loess record: Kukla and Koci
384-395: Abrubt climatic change at 90,000 BP: faunal evidence from the gulf of mexico cores: Kennett and Huddlestun
396-398: Speculations about the next glaciation: Dansgaard, Johnsen, Clausen, Langway
399-400: The salinity of the north atlantic ocean and the next glaciation: Weyl
401-408: Antarctic ice surges: Hollin
409-411: On climate change: Stuiver
412-424: Insolation regimes of interglacials: Kukla and Kukla
425-435: Atmospheric particles and climate: can we evaluate the impact of mans activities?: Schneider
436-445: Natural breakdown of the present interglacial: Mitchell

Context and Summary
Remember: lots of things we now know weren't available then. There was no Vostok core clearly showing 4 previous glacial periods with a nice 100kyr cycle (they had a 100kyr core from Greenland). Hayes et al (see main page) didn't come till 1976. Etc.

What they had was: a 20-ish year cooling trend (which we now know looks best in the northern hemisphere); a belief that previous interglacials were 10kyr-ish long; a conciousness that human activities might be changing the climate (for warm or cold was unclear, though guesses towards warmth were more common); and a belief that human activities might be vulnerable to cliamte change and perhaps they ought to care.

Remember also: these people are mostly geologist-types (the editorial says the conference was for "paleontologists, sedimentologists, stratigraphers, and palaeoclimatologists") and they don't mean what you might expect by things like "soon" and "brief".

Summarising the thing is difficult. Footnote 2 (which covers 1/3 of the first page of the editorial, and looks to me suspiciously like it was inserted at a late date for balance) seems to me to provide a good summary of ideas at that time amongst this research community:

Variation in research stategy amongst the various authors deserve explanatory note. Many authors of this volume consider the precise causitive mchanism of climate change to be poorly understood at present. Their conclusions and predictions are therefore based on empirical recognition of parallels in time series data for climatic indicators between past interglacials and the recent warm interval (cf. Emiliani). Indeed, many articles simply draw conclusions concerning past events and leave it for the reader to imply that similar events may be anticipated in the future (cf. Mathews, Kennett and Huddlestun, this volume). On the other hand, some authors consider the cause of the glacial-interglacial climate cliamte [sic] change to lie in the changing geographic distribution of insolation (the so-called Milankovitch mechanism). These authors base their conclusions and predictions, at least in part, upon comparison between the calculated variations in insolation and the palaeoclimatic evidence (cf. Kukla and Kukla, or Mitchell).

These two different approaches to research on climate change must run their own courses until such time as the validity of general theories is well demonstrated. Indeed, testing of general theories with empirical geologic data is possibly the largest contribution which geologists can make to research on future climatic change.

Perhaps the most interesting thing to note from this is that the Milankovitch hypothesis had not been generally adopted by this time.

Also, I think that they are being careless with their use of the word "prediction" here; I think the individual authors of the volume are more careful.
Editorial
The editorial begins with a discussion of the cooling trend then prevalent; then on p. 263 we find "When comparing the present with previous interglacials, several investigators showed that the present interglacial is in the final phase ... and that if nature were allowed to run its course unaltered by man, events similar to those which ended the last interglacial should be expected soon, possibly within the few next centuries."

The signs pointing to an end appear to be vegetation changes, such as the decline of elms. I don't know about that stuff. In passing, note that they use "soon" to include "within the few next centuries", probably because they are geologists.

Towards the end, they write:

"...the basic conclusion to be drawn from the discussions in this section is that the knowledge necessary for understanding the mechanism of climate change is still lamentably inadequate".

Honesty compells me to include, however, the rather contradictory conclusion (b) from the conference summary: "Global cooling and related rapid changes of environment, substantially exceeding the fluctuations experienced by man in historical times, can be expected within the next few millenia; perhaps even centuries."

From my (brief) reading of the conference papers I consider this statement a bit odd. For example, the first paper by Emiliani says

"Thermal, CO2 and aerosol pollution pollution produce contrasting effects... Their relative magnitudes are poorly understood and the net effect is unknown ... even in sign. In the absence of man, the present hypsithermal [interglacial] should be ending... Mans activiety may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps...".

More from Emiliani below. Now read on, if you can bear it...
The papers
Some of the papers are very short - a page or 2 - and speculative: eg:

Speculations about the next glaciation: Dansgaard, Johnsen, Clausen, Langway: which presents a bit of data, and says (of a previous return to glaciation) "...[milankovitch or] are we faced with more or less accidental events, such as ice surges or intense volcanic activity, that trigger a full glaciation, if the insolation conditions favour such development? Is mans present activity equivalent to such an accidental event?".

Thats somewhat typical: there are more questions than answers, in the tedious old cliche.
Quaternay Hypsithermals: Emiliani

E begins by pointing out (his fig 1) that pre-1950, people thought there had been 4 major glaciations in the last 1Myr, separated by long interglacials. After C^14 and O^18/O^16 dating, people realised the truth, ah ha!: (1) T oscillated between interglacial max and glacial min more regularly, about 50kyr period (2) glacial and interglacials relatively short (10-30kyr each) (3) except for core stage 3, max's were about equal as were mins (4) interglacial maxes were less than 10kyr long.

Oops.

This is wrong in two key points, as currently understood: glacial cycles are about 100kyr long; and the interglacials are shorter than the glacials.

E follows this with (his italics): "This latter conclusion [ie, (4)] is of immediate concern because the present warm interval has already lasted close to 10,000yr".

Interglacials (he likes to say, "Hypsithermals", meaning temperature peaks, but obviously no-one else could remember it) he estimates as 10% of the last 425kyr.

So... he's wrong, but thats not our main concern: we're interested in the state of knowledge then. Trying to predict, he says:

"...the hypsithermals represent a precarious balance [this is an odd thing to say] which can last only a relatively short period of time before more normal, lower temperatures are reestablished.

...mans interference with the heat budget... is assuming alarming proportions (SMIC 1971; Matthews et al., 1971). Thermal, CO2, and aerosol pollution produce contrasting effects... Their relative magnitudes are poorly understood and the net effect is unknown, not only in magnitude but even in sign. In the absence of man, the present hypsithermal [interglacial] should be ending (Emiliani, 1971)... Mans activiety may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps... and subsequent sea level rise. Needless to say, both phenomena, either one of which is now a distinct possibility, would lead to catastrophic environmental stresses. It is clear, then, that the present, precarious climatic balance must be stabalised. It is also clear that, in order to achieve this goal, the climatic history of the past half million years must be studied in much greater detail and the effect of human activity on cliamte must be assessed with quantitative precision."

So... his conclusion is that something will happen "soon" (but thats a geologists soon, not an everyday soon), but he doesn't know what, so we'd better study more to find out.
Atmospheric particles and climate: can we evaluate the impact of mans activities?: Schneider
Schneider will be familiar to regular readers of sci.env and the ice age controversies. In this paper he returns to the particulate loading theories of the famous 1971 R+S paper (see main page) but is less definite. The 1971 paper is very briefly referenced ("Particles, on the other hand, could decrease the temperature of the Earth's surface by screening out part of the incoming solar beam and thus raise the albedo (or reflectivity) of the Earth - thereby decreasing the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth (McCormick and Ludwig, 1967; Rasool and Schneider, 1971; Yamamoto and Tanaka, 1971)."), but this is preceeded by "The effect of increased CO2 is well-known to be an increase in the temperature of the Earth's surface by an enhancement of the 'greenhouse effect' (Manabe and Wetherald, 1967)".

He also notes that some (Bryon, 1968) think particulates are resp for cooling obs, and could lead to more [thats for DL].

He says "This paper will attempt to summarize the 'state of the art' concerning the question of atmospheric aerosols and climate..." which means it isn't going to try to balance that against CO2 warming.

The conclusions aren't terribly exciting... (1) Obs of inc in aerosol in NH; but obs still v unsatisfactory (2) global-av models indicate that inc aerosol could sig inc albedo; but better data req etc (3) better gcms needed. No exclamation marks, sorry.

Incidentally, there is a ref to a tech comment by Charlson, Harrison and Witt (Science, 1972, 175, 95-6) and reply by R+S, probably about vert dist of aerosol, that I haven't read. Go on someone, read it.

 

[red states rule]

More Kyoto Fallacies Exposed in Glenn Beck’s ‘Climate of Fear’
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 4, 2007 - 17:33.

As NewsBusters reported Thursday, a goodly number of fallacies about the Kyoto Protocol were identified in Glenn Beck’s “Exposed: The Climate of Fear” special presented on CNN Headline News Wednesday. Not the least of these was that soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore himself stated when he was Vice President that this treaty would not be submitted to Congress for ratification “until there`s meaningful participation by key developing nations.”

However, there are two other important issues that skeptics raise which the media generally ignore:

If America participated in Kyoto and met the treaty’s targets, virtually nothing would be accomplished as it pertains to climate change
Moneys and energies allocated to address global warming could be better spent to solve more pressing international maladies.

With that in mind, Beck interviewed Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, and asked this pivotal question that Gore and his sycophant followers never want answered:

Video Clip: Real (3 MB) or Windows (2.5MB), plus MP3 (1 MB)

[A]s a guy who believes in manmade global warming, why don`t you think Kyoto is the solution?

What followed was the dirty little secret the alarmists don’t want anybody to know:

Kyoto is, at the same time, impossibly ambitious and yet entirely inconsequential when you talk about the environment. It will cost lots of money and end up doing virtually no good… It will basically postpone global warming for about five years at the end of the century.

That set up this marvelous exchange about what other pressing problems are facing the planet, and how all this global warming discussion is unnecessarily diverting attention:

BECK: Let me play devil`s advocate here. Al Gore has made mention of malaria a lot. Some people say we could save 100,000 people on malaria alone if we do something about global warming. Why wouldn`t we save 100,000 people?

LOMBORG: We could probably save about 85 million people from malaria if we did something about malaria. These people are suffering right now.

Why is it we`re talking about making very expensive moves doing virtually no good 100 years from now when there are real people that we can really save very cheaply from malaria right now?

Good questions, yes? Wouldn’t it be nice if Gore’s followers in the media actually asked him similar questions rather than declaring him one of the most influential “scientists and thinkers” on the face of the planet?

Regardless of the answer, Lomborg had much more to say on this issue:

BECK: OK. You started something called the Copenhagen Consensus, and this was a group of experts from the U.N., economists, et cetera, et cetera, and you prioritized all of the world`s biggest problems and where we would be most effective in spending our money. AIDS was number one, right?

LOMBORG: Yes, and basically the point is again to say we have a tendency to bark up the wrong tree. We worry intensely about climate change, but the point is we can do very little good at very high cost.

Let`s focus on where we can actually do a lot of good. If we care about this planet, if we care about its environment, shouldn`t we do where we can do the most good first?

What these Nobel laureates basically told us if we spend our money on HIV/AIDS, we can do $40 word of good for every dollar. If we spend it on Kyoto, we can only do 30 cents. Let`s do the $40 first.

Get the point? This group of Nobel laureates concluded that $40 worth of good could be accomplished with every dollar we spend on AIDS as opposed to 30 cents for every dollar we spend trying to hit Kyoto targets.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that liberal media elites don’t understand the economics involved, nor that they don't care when the agenda is clearly more important than actually solving problems.

Recognizing the obvious absurdity, Beck asked Lomborg what the top five issues on these laureates’ list were, and where global warming fell:

Basically what they told us was it was HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, free trade, malaria and agricultural research. Those are things that we can do cheaply and do an immense amount of impact in this world right now and also for future generations.

Kyoto came down at the bottom. Not because climate change is not real, but simply because the way we tackled it through Kyoto is very expensive and a very poor way of helping the world.

Think this will be the topic of discussion at a media outlet near you any time soon?

What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.


GLENN BECK, HOST: Well, when Al Gore testified before Congress on global warming just a couple of months ago it was a media circus, but also testifying that day without any fanfare or really any coverage was Bjorn Lomborg. He`s the author of the best-selling book "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He`s an expert on the economic impact of global warming.

Bjorn, you`re not a scientist, you`re a political scientist, so I`m not going to ask any science questions. I want to ask you, as a guy who believes in manmade global warming, why don`t you think Kyoto is the solution?

BJORN LOMBORG, AUTHOR, "THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST`S GUIDE": Well, essentially exactly because of what you showed in the clip. Kyoto is, at the same time, impossibly ambitious and yet entirely inconsequential when you talk about the environment. It will cost lots of money and end up doing virtually no good. That`s not a good deal.

BECK: Let me -- let me show the chart.

LOMBORG: What we need to look at is to try to find smarter ways.

BECK: This is the chart. This is the impact of Kyoto here on this chart, compared to if we do nothing?

LOMBORG: Yes. Basically no change. It will basically postpone global warming for about five years at the end of the century.

BECK: OK. Let me...

LOMBORG: That`s not a very good deal.

BECK: Let me play devil`s advocate here. Al Gore has made mention of malaria a lot. Some people say we could save 100,000 people on malaria alone if we do something about global warming. Why wouldn`t we save 100,000 people?

LOMBORG: We could probably save about 85 million people from malaria if we did something about malaria. These people are suffering right now.

Why is it we`re talking about making very expensive moves doing virtually no good 100 years from now when there are real people that we can really save very cheaply from malaria right now?

BECK: OK. We just had a situation -- I don`t remember when it was -- just a few years ago, where we had a massive heat wave in Europe. Thirty- five thousand people in France alone died. Another 2,000 people died from this heat wave in England.

If we don`t stop global warming, won`t things just get worse and worse and more people will die just from -- from the heat?

LOMBORG: Glenn, that`s exactly true and that`s, of course, what Al Gores tells us. With global warming you`re going to see more heat deaths, but what most people don`t tell us is we`re also going to see much less cold deaths.

And actually, many more people die from cold than from heat, so for England alone you mentioned the number 2,000 people. Actually that`s what we expect will die from more heat waves in 2080, but what we have to remember is that 20,000 fewer will die from cold each year in 2080.

Now I`m not sitting and saying we should go for global warming, but I`m saying we need to know both.

BECK: OK. You started something called the Copenhagen Consensus, and this was a group of experts from the U.N., economists, et cetera, et cetera, and you prioritized all of the world`s biggest problems and where we would be most effective in spending our money. AIDS was number one, right?

LOMBORG: Yes, and basically the point is again to say we have a tendency to bark up the wrong tree. We worry intensely about climate change, but the point is we can do very little good at very high cost.

Let`s focus on where we can actually do a lot of good. If we care about this planet, if we care about its environment, shouldn`t we do where we can do the most good first?

What these Nobel laureates basically told us if we spend our money on HIV/AIDS, we can do $40 word of good for every dollar. If we spend it on Kyoto, we can only do 30 cents. Let`s do the $40 first.

BECK: Give me -- give me the top five quickly, and where does global warming fall in this list?

LOMBORG: Basically what they told us was it was HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, free trade, malaria and agricultural research. Those are things that we can do cheaply and do an immense amount of impact in this world right now and also for future generations.

Kyoto came down at the bottom. Not because climate change is not real, but simply because the way we tackled it through Kyoto is very expensive and a very poor way of helping the world.

BECK: Bjorn, thanks.


http://newsbusters.org/node/12531

 

[wiggles]

In short, you've got nothing.

 

[red states rule]

In short, you've got nothing.

That what I have said about the enviro wackos and their global warming hysteria for years

 

[red states rule]

ABC Science Blog: What the Heck, Let's Blame Global Warming Anyway
Posted by Ken Shepherd on May 8, 2007 - 16:55.
The Greensburg tornado disaster was just the perfect excuse for another global warming item on ABCNews.com.

After all, the Associated Press and CNN have focused on an Iraq angle to devastating tornado damage, but finding an Iraq angle to everything is so, I dunno, 2004.

At any rate, on his "Science and Society" blog at ABCNews.com yesterday, reporter Ned Potter set out to find why tornado touchdowns have increased in the past few years.

I called the National Weather Service, which says that as of today it knows of 69 dead in tornadoes since Jan. 1, compared to 49 up to this point last year, and 38 deaths for all of 2005. It's worth looking around NOAA's Storm Prediction Center site; find it HERE.

Is there a reason? Shifting weather patterns? Shifting population patterns? Global climate change? Clayton Sandell was asked to put together some notes.

Sadly for the media, Potter found out that "for all they know, global warming might even change atmospheric patterns and conditions in such a way to lead to fewer tornadoes."

Yet Potter didn't walk away completely empty-handed. He found a scientist to say that global warming could increase the moisture in the atmosphere and produce more "heavy rainfall events."

I'll have to remember that this summer when we're bound to see the media reporting on the nation's "parched" farmlands and "tinder box" conditions in Western forests as proof-positive of global warming.



http://newsbusters.org/node/12609

 

[wiggles]

Who's Ken Shepherd? What are his credentials? How do they trump William Connolley's (Climate Modeller, Physical Sciences Division, Cambridge)? And what do either of those rinky-dink Newsbusters op-eds have to do with the lie about someone saying in the 70s that another ice age was on the way.

NOTHING.

 

[red states rule]

He is a reporter who does his homework and does not accept the hysteria of global warming as some people do


In other words - he does his job

 

[wiggles]

He is a reporter who does his homework and does not accept the hysteria of global warming as some people do


In other words - he does his job

Well my guy was an actual climate scientist, so suck on it.

 

[red states rule]

Well my guy was an actual climate scientist, so suck on it.

Well, how about Max Mayfield?

Global warming 'not to blame' for hurricanes
The current cycle of heavy hurricanes blowing across the Atlantic Ocean probably will continue for another 10 to 20 years as a result of natural weather patterns not global warming, the head of the National Hurricane Centre told the US Congress.

"We believe this heightened period of hurricane activity will continue ... as tropical cyclone activity in the Atlantic is cyclical," Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Centre (NHC) in Miami, said.

Mr Mayfield said another three to six tropical storms, which could turn into hurricanes, are expected to strike before the end of 2005, making a total of 18 to 21 for the year.

He dismissed the possibility that global warming could be playing a major role in the growing number of tropical storms.

"The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural cycles of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming," Mr Mayfield said.

Responding to a question by a member of the Senate committee on commerce, science and transportation, Mr Mayfield said that certain studies suggest "there will be a 5 per cent increase about the year 2080 if there's a doubling in carbon dioxide (emissions)".

Explaining the theory of storm cycles, he said a large number of strong hurricanes occurred from the 1940s to the 1960s before declining in the 1970s to the mid-1990s.

Last week, a study published in the magazine Science set out a hypothesis that a link could exist between a surge in storm activity and elevated temperatures on the ocean surface.

- AFP

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1464916.htm

 

[wiggles]

Well, how about Max Mayfield?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1464916.htm

I'm not seeing where he's saying anything about that iceage that was supposedly predicted. Nice :*cough* lame-ass as usual: try at changing the subject though.

 

[red states rule]

I'm not seeing where he's saying anything about that iceage that was supposedly predicted. Nice :*cough* lame-ass as usual: try at changing the subject though.

Max takes down some the enviro wacko talking points

 

[wiggles]

Max takes down some the enviro wacko talking points

No he didn't.

There. I just took down one of your talking points. See how easy?

 

[red states rule]

No he didn't.

There. I just took down one of your talking points. See how easy?

Keep trying - you might make a small dent


Not the End of the World as We Know It
By Olaf Stampf

How bad is climate change really? Are catastrophic floods and terrible droughts headed our way? Despite widespread fears of a greenhouse hell, the latest computer simulations are delivering far less dramatic predictions about tomorrow's climate.

Svante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, would be called a heretic today. Far from issuing the sort of dire predictions about climate change which are common nowadays, the Swedish physicist dared to predict a paradise on earth for humans when he announced, in April 1896, that temperatures were rising -- and that it would be a blessing for all.

Arrhenius, who later won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, calculated that the release of carbon dioxide -- or carbonic acid as it was then known -- through burning coal, oil and natural gas would lead to a significant rise in temperatures worldwide. But, he argued, "by the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates," potentially making poor harvests and famine a thing of the past.

Arrhenius was merely expressing a view that was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the day: warm times are good times; cold times are bad.

During the so-called Medieval Warm Period between about 900 and 1300 A.D., for example, the Vikings raised livestock on Greenland and sailed to North America. New cities were built all across Europe, and the continent's population grew from 30 million to 80 million.

The consequences of the colder temperatures that plunged civilization into the so-called Little Ice Age for several centuries after 1300 were devastating. Summers were rainy, winters cold, and in many places temperatures were too low for grain crops to mature. Famines and epidemics raged, and average life expectancy dropped by 10 years. In Germany, thousands of villages were abandoned and entire stretches of land depopulated.

The shock produced by the cold was as deep-seated it was long-lasting. When temperatures plunged unexpectedly once again in the 1960s, many meteorologists were quick to warn people about the coming of a new ice age -- supposedly triggered by man-made air pollution. Hardly anyone at the time believed a warming trend could pose a threat.

It was not until the rise of the environmental movement in the 1980s that everything suddenly changed. From then on it was almost a foregone conclusion that global warming could only be perceived as a disaster for the earth's climate. Environmentalists, adopting a strategy typical of the Catholic Church, have been warning us about the horrors of greenhouse gas hell ever since -- painting it as a punishment for the sin of meddling with creation. What was conveniently ignored, however, is that humanity has been reshaping the planet for a very long time, first by clearing forests and plowing fields, and later by building roads, cities and factories.

In the age of climate change, it has become a popular social pastime to scour the weather forecast for omens of doom. Has it ever been as hot in April as it is this year? Is this lack of rain normal? Could all this mean that the end is nigh?

for the complete article
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html

 

[Vintij]

look guys global warming is just a psuedo issue, its mainly political and nobody in america including the elite hollywoodiands....know anything about global warming that was not broadcast on your local news channel or National Geographic. They only pretend to know to look like they are doing something with a cause, kinda like adopting african children.

The truth is, we dont have enough data to know if Anthropogenic global warming does exist, nor do we have enough technology to research it to the fullest extent. So this argument can go both ways, but its not really going anywhere, anytime soon. This will be a real issue in a couple of years when we know more about it. Until then, its not bad to just conserve energy and try to live slightly greener lives.

 

[wiggles]

The truth is, we dont have enough data to know if Anthropogenic global warming does exist

Where'd you get that? A press release from Exxon and the Competitive Enterprise Institute?

Tell it to the 120 scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Academies of Science of like 18 nations, including the U.S.