Climate catastrophe may loom within our lifetimes. What's to be done ? First to realize; then to transform fear into action. But what action ?
 
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/07/478984/hug-the-monster-why-so-many-c limate-scientists-have-stopped-downplaying-the-climate-threat/?mobile=nc

We just have to get together and everyone must agree on change what needs to be changed to fix the climate.  Not that its easy for us to change our ways.  It`s probably easyer for us to convince the others to change.
 
Norway is a proud example, telling the rest of the world what to do while constantly searching for, and fortunately finding, more oil below the ocean.  We`re saved, and fu@k the rest of you.
Last I heard is that the Norwegian landmass is still rising more than the expected rise in the ocean, so the new opera house in Oslo will stay abowe the water level while the rest of you suffer your puny catastrophe.  Our weather will possibly become a bit more "wild" in the future, but nothing like most of you will experience.
 
But the rest of you should really go on and save yourself from the catastrophe.  Might make it even better for us too.  Moahahaha
timann

Not against the idea of climate change. Definitely skeptical of the idea behind "scientifically proven man-made climate change".  And I'm very skeptical of the claimed motivations of certain big climate change proponents.  
 
Alright let me get off the soap box... Sorry bout that. Whether you're a hardcore young earth Bible believing creationist or an Atheist or anything in between, climate change is real IMO. It's called weather. And it happens on a daily scale, a seasonal scale and epochal scale.  Personally I think we are experiencing an epochal weather change at the moment. (The cause behind it is anyone's guess...) That is just my opinion and as such is worth zilch. That's just my belief.

That's more weather than climate change but we get it anyway.

The real issue for some is whether mankind is primarily at fault.

eh. Having spent time in academia you quickly learn that there is an expert opinion out there agreeing with every position and every extreme position. US incarceration rate is horribly worse than Europe. US incarceration rate is proportional to crime. US is more violent than other countries. US is only more violent because of handguns. Prison is the US replacement for slavery because we're all scared of black people and racist etc, etc, etc. There is no position so ludicrous that some Ph.D. out there has not endorsed it.  
 
And the more you study statistics the more you realize how useless they can be. Consider: I can construct a statistical model predicting violent crime using ice cream sales that will come out significant in most major cities in the US. Statistical significance =/= causal proof. We think that what's really pushing it around is the heat, and in fact ice cream might be a better indicator of perceived heat than actual temperatures but it is ludicrous to believe that ice cream sales push around violent crime, yet statistically it cannot be disproved (even if you did construct a multi-variate model taking into account temp, humidity, breeze etc, parsimony says icecream model is preferable). But statistics can't pull them apart, you have to use theoretical arguments which ultimately have a deontological component. Or if academics were more honest a leap of faith as a component.
 
As to consensus. Consensus was the ptolemic model of stars and planets was infinitely preferable to the heliocentric model. Consensus was that it was ridiculous that little microscopic organisms could cause death/disease or that spontaneous generation was anything other than demonstrated fact. Please note that I am not disrespecting scientific inquiry or analysis. It has led to great progress but as a rule: trust engineers more than scientists.  
 
I tend to agree with Morphy. Change is occurring, to what end or extent and the amount of man's responsibility in changing it I don't know. I'm not convinced by the arguments I've seen. And the original article saying "it's worse than scientists have been saying". I disagree. I've heard all about how it's going to be armageddon. No place to live on earth etc. I really don't see that as holding back, which makes me distrust anything else the article says. Propaganda to be analyzed as propaganda, not as something that I can accept.
 
I know I know nothing about economics. But given a brief study of the last 100 years of economics experts: neither have they. But if my reading of history has yielded me one thing it's that we won't change our habits until we have no choice. Often when we have no choice we lose a proportion of the herd but this far some of us have always survived, adapted, and continued. C'mon. The vikings deforested Iceland, every organism depletes its environment often irreparably at which point they adapt or move on. I'm confident that this will continue. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to actually lose our standard of living which would have to happen if we accept everything scientists have said as true. And even then I doubt it would matter, this is analogous to the arguments for dispersing cities once Russia became nuclear capable. Very intelligent people thought Nuclear war was inevitable unless the UN only posessed Nukes or we spread out all our cities, fundamentally altering our way of life. As intelligent as they were, as good as the arguments were, they were wrong. People have been decrying the end of the world for centuries. I can't really get worked up over our version.
 
*gets off soapbox*

Things balance out in the long run-- like epidemics do (dying out when the population's changed enough). In the short run and the middle run, a lot of people suffer and die. That's what we should worry about.  
 
For me, the twin facts of the impact of man-made climate change and the limited abilities of the average citizen to do something directly about it should be hovering on our consciousness, and influencing our political and individual choices.

I'm moving to Canada.  Or maybe Norway.  I really like Norway.
 
As to the climate change.  I don't think anything can be done.  There is no world organization of significant power to do anything about it and enforce whatever rules are developed.  Worse, it's the most developed countries that have the luxury of reducing their carbon footprints.  Countries like China and India are producing more CO2 every year.  In 2008, China was producing two million metric tonnes more CO2 than the US, and that number is growing, by 2010 it is estimated to have reached 3 million metric tonnes more.  By contrast, US CO2 levels increased by only 30,000 metric tonnes (still a lot, but not nearly as much as a developing country), and some countries like Canada actually reduced their emissions.  China is also using coal, without proper scrubbers like it's going out of style - and they have a lot of coal to use.  The same story is true over much of the developing world.  Even if the "first world" creates treaties and laws and all the rest of it, I don't think it will matter much.  Global CO2 production will still go up.
 
So, pack your bags and come to Canada with me.  Or maybe Norway.  Yeah, Norway.

The problem is also that whatever country does something first will shoulder the burden-- will be the "sucker" while other countries act as free-riders. That, plus rationalisation mechanisms at the individual level (it's only weather, people have always panicked, those scientists must be wanting more grants, it's an anti-capitalist plot).  
 
In terms of collective action, it doesn't look good at all.

In a way, the US already acts (or acted) as a free-rider on W. European, and also Chinese, efforts to restrict CO emissions; and I don't see why the developing countries are not also free-riders. The attitude of the W. European and Chinese was that if enough is done, that might create a critical mass, and that other countries can agglutinate to this. Hopefully in time.  
 
The two problems are those of collective action at the international level, and conviction in liberal democracies where there are very powerful interests at work, in conjunction with head-in-sand rationalization mechanisms (the latter often manipulated by the first). Are they solvable ?
 
 

Quote from Thearos on May 14^th, 2012, 7:09am:

 
Are you kidding me?  The US is a free-rider on the Chinese efforts?  Have you looked at the carbon footprint of China, the unabashed use of coal technology without scrubbers, the huge air pollution problems plaguing China's major cities like Shanghai?  China is like Victorian England in its concern for the environment.

While I respect that viewpoint Bikewer the problem is it applies to both sides of this issue. Science is funded by multimillion dollar grants from the government (and universities that house the scientists get to take significant percentages as overhead and use those funds however they choose), NPR has government funding, and if this argument carries the day it means expanded governmental power and more money from for the scientists who study this and the companies that want to produce "green" energy and other solutions.
 
Like I said. I don't know. I stay fairly well informed. I read the published scientific papers from stories in the news that give me pause. And I don't know. I do know that science is not as pristine as it presents itself, and there are power/money relations on both sides of the issue. Significant ones. I think honest, searching individuals can come down on both sides of this issue and only time will tell what comes.  The more I read history, and science from then and now, the more convinced I become that all issues are more complicated than either side allows.

My impression is that those scientists that don`t believe in man made climate change is bullshitters which can be easily dismissed.  But how the climate would have been, and on it`s way toward, without us, as another matter.  
Some say the earth should have really been on it`s way toward a new ice age, I don`t know how cool that would have been either
 
I got a strong impression that there is some differenses in the way media present climate issues in USA compared to Europe, and Norway, in my case.
 
@ perpetualstudent  Fun fact, the violence and incarceration rate in USA is not even comparable to Norway, but the percentage guns vs people is.  Hunting and competition shooting is big here with shotguns and rifles, handguns is permitted for competition only, not hunting or self defence.  This means lots of people has guns at home, but people usually don`t shoot each other.  Some people do it sometimes, but seldom.
 
@ Atlatlista, if you do you could perhaps coach me in the use of atlatl, atlatl instructors is not all that common around here
timann

Quote:

 
yep - the earth is currently in  a warm up phase. The last ice age wa snot that long ago (on a truly global scale) if you look back through the fossil records the earth regularly goes through these warm up and cool down phases.  
 
Is it caused by greenhouse gasses - possibly.  
life proliferates and produces co2 and methane. the earth cools down and some of the life disappears. the earth warms up and it comes back. and the cycle starts again.  
 
So while man and his civilisations are probably contributing a little to this current phase - it's something that would have happened anyway.

I'm not a scientist. I don't claim to be fully in command of the science or the arguments. I just notice clear reports that there is a scientific consensus emerging that there is a problem, that it is identified, that action can be taken but that it's not happening. I think this is serious.

I'm reminded of the parallels with the response to the discovery of the Ozone hole'. For those who are too young to remember it   there is a lengthy article in Wikipedia which from my quick look at it is pretty good.
 
I'm not sure if any of the same scientists were prominently involved with that were also involved with the early work in effects of CO2 emissions, although it shouldn't be too difficult to find out. Whatever the politics involved there, and there was plenty, a consensus was reached and some actions taken. It did at least open the mind of politicians and other 'opinion formers' that we (the human race) might influence our environment in significant and potentially damaging ways through our actions.
 
What is beyond doubt is that the debate within the U.S., and pretty much there alone, has been so utterly poisoned by party political interests that I see no consensus occurring. It certainly didn't help that the Nobel committee saw fit to award a prize to Gore, and then rub salt in the wound with another to Obama. It was to say the least impolitic. Thirty years ago I cannot imagine a debate where an admittedly highly complex model is being opposed on apparently equal terms by 'no it isn't' arguments would be taken seriously.
 
The portrayal of scientists as 'scoundrels' may have it's element of truth, but I think you will find a considerably higher ratio of scoundrels in corporate 'public relations' departments.
 
Scientists put their personal reputations on the line when they make statements. In the end mistakes let alone lies can end a career.  
 
Not so for the characters who issue press releases for corporate entities.
 
There is probably a sense of collective safety in the 'bandwagon' of many scientists believing the same conclusions, and the physical models used in the analysis and predictions are wrapped up for the most part in enormous and complex computer code, that quite a small fraction of the scientists probably fully understand, let alone a 'layman'. These all lead to uncertainties in the conclusions which it seems to me the scientists (as embodied in the UN group) have striven to be honest about. However I think it can be taken that they have argued this out amongst themselves.
 
perpetual student: Whether corporations are 'evil' or not, what is striking is that the obligation for moral behavior and integrity (I'm not going to get in to a pointless debates about subtle definitions here) which are felt by most individuals other than psychopaths, are not required behavior on the part of these entities. We've seen enough cases of 'immoral but not illegal' behavior in the past few years to think otherwise.
 
In the current case, it is clear that any disruption to their business model is a nuisance reflected in loss of profitability. Anything that can be done to allow them time to adapt is going to be to their benefit. Personally, I suspect most if not all of these corporations see the writing on the wall, they just need to buy time to adapt so that they can keep  making money. What they are all terrified of is allowing a competitor an advantage.
 
I'm not clear at all what Galileo being wrong about the tides is supposed to demonstrate. Galileo is a justly revered figure who was a great thinker. He precedes the quantitative stages initiated by Newton and his contemporaries, and so lacked the concept of physical law which developed after his time. In modern terms we might say that he had wonderful physical insight but he did not express his understanding in the mathematical language of later generations.
Had the results of later generations been available to him, I think Galileo would have either realized his insight had failed him, or had some very stimulating arguments for why he was still 'right'.
 
Then as now scientists can be wrong. There is nothing more misleading than the popular portrayal of the physical scientist as an arrogant s.o.b. who will not listen to reason, and 'knows' he is right (usually he! . Most scientists in my experience do not fit this profile. One of the advantages with 'externalizing' the formal reasoning in to mathematical ideas is that assumptions and flaws can be laid bare explicitly, and seen by others.
 
People may honestly disagree over the aspects of a model - but in a sober discussion they should be capable of pointing out the places at which they disagree. The trouble with so many politically loaded debates nowadays is that this point is never reached. The practical point is also that to have any hope of understanding the model involves far more intellectual effort than most of us can be bothered to assign to it, which is why we fall back on proxies to argue the details.
 
If we do that (as at least 99.9% of the people here are doing, on one side or the other) we have to recognize the fact and carefully reflect on whether those proxies are worthy of our high trust in them.

Quote:

 
bloody hell - took you long enough to get to that point  
But it makes sense.  
 

Well, while I was poking around looking for what's going on with all this I encountered this article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029 .html
 
This is more or less hot off the digital presses.
 
Yes, I know reading the Huffington Post might be construed as making a political statement, but whatever that be, the content is I believe interesting, and it was high on the list of Google search for 'global warming skeptic'.
 
The gist for those who can't be bothered is that a scientist who wanted to investigate his suspicions over the whole business did so, and apparently feels his suspicions were not confirmed. As they point out the funding came from a strongly 'right wing' skeptical group. I have not read the article fully, or read any other of the links there - yet however I would much rather the tone of the article were less of a gloat.
 
On the other hand, I can't resist a link to his web page http://muller.lbl.gov/, where you will discover he has a sense of humor .

Everyone who want's to know something about the future, may want to have an idea of the past. Therefore I'd like to give you a very interesting lecture hint:
 
John McNeill. Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the 20th-Century World. New York: Norton, 2000.
 
I run over this book during a lecture in environmental history, which I have chosen to attend to brighten up the sky of all the dry electrodynamics and optics lectures. It's not a "scientific" book, as it is written in a very readable and informative way. Also it is quite neutral (as neutral as you can be in this discussions). It gives more or less a summary of the environmental history of the 20th century, focussing on different subjects and treating different environmental problems regarding what the problems were and which actions were taken (or not) against it (e.g. the air pollution in London due to coal stoves). It gives some nices examples how humans can affect the environment.
 
Therefore my personal oppinion is: Yes, humanity can change the climate and Yes, we do it right now. I don't want to argue about what are we exactly doing or where are we heading to, as this involves complex simulations in which you may believe or not believe, after having studied (or in my case: not studied) them for a while (say about 5 years).
 
I'd more like to point out, that there are other reasons to pay attention to our resources which in my oppinion would also lead to an environmental/climate improvement. To illustrate this I would like to pick up the Chinese topic with this caricature:  http://files.newsnetz.ch/bildlegende/20708/718218_pic_970x641.jpg  (China Daily)
I think, the main message of the picture for us (considering us beeing The West) would be: We don't know what we want. A new IPad now or a new IPad for our children in twenty to fifty years. There is not an infinite supply of resources.
The second reason is about energy, which is more related to the climate discussion: Our current industry is mainly dependant on oil, therefore if oil runs out, we can say goodbye to cars and plastic. But oil does not have to run out, the saudis could also just decide to close the tap (or have another rebellion). Therefore if you want to be independent, consume as few oil as possible. How to do this? Save energy, don't produce waste would be some of the first things to say.
An other approach would be to substitute the missing energy by e.g. solar cells, wind and water energy. Therefore we would be able to substitute certain "oily" things by more energy consumpting products. The positive sidekick would be producing less CO(2) (at least in your country) and advanced ways to produce energy when the oil realy runs out, giving us a headstart before the still "oily" countries.
The negative sides: Get me these rare earths from china to produce my solar cells! and Who will pay for it? and The others don't join in and I'm the ** who pays the bill! as was already mentioned here in the preceding discussion.
I think this is were the natural sciences end and politics as well as human minds (and wallets) begin to work and it gets even more complicated than the simulations of the climate scientists already are  .
 
Greets Teg

Quote from perpetualstudent on May 17^th, 2012, 7:13am:
As concepts of atomicity were refined discrepancies were recognized. I don't think there was a change in consensus in this case either. This is an excellent case of science actually working, isn't it? A model was improved by realizing discrepancies in observations could be accounted for through the introduction of the concept of isotopes.
 
If you are worried about 'herd instinct' among scientists, quite right. So am I. But if someone warns you that they think someone might be coming to burn your house down, do you ignore them, or do you take precautions?
 
Quote:
Similar remarks are not confined to scientists.
 
Quote:
 
Was there any disagreement contemporary with Galileo on this matter, since no one else had any explanation at all. I think the operative term is 'intelligent disagreement'.
 
Quote:
No it isn't, I think it is worse.  
 
Quote:

Then why bring them up? Writing such things gives the impression that whatever items you do choose to discuss there is a never-ending supply of others with which to bludgeon anyone who speaks to a subset of them.  
 
Quote:

I think perhaps you expect too much of science.
 
Quote:

Well good. The point was that this is a very good reason to be suspicious, as Thearos pointed out, of their motives.
 
Quote:

I havn't listened to the Science Friday items that Bikewer mentioned - maybe there are podcasts of them - but I suspect you will get the most intelligent discussion available from an American source there, government (partial) funding notwithstanding.
 
It would be nice if scientists could do their work unsullied by the inconvenience of earning a living. However, the age of gentlemen scientists is over, and scientists have to live. Where do you propose they should obtain funding from to alleviate the air of suspicion?
 
If there is a change in administration come this November, we may find out.

Wanderer: a structured response follows. I omitted one or two paragraphs but I think I retained all the points.  
 
 
Kuhn's Structure of scientific revolution Chapter 10 pg 135 "Chemists could not, therefore, simply accept Dalton's theory on the evidence, for much of that was still negative. Instead, even after accepting the theory, they had still to beat nature into line, a process which, in the event, took almost another generation. When it was done, even the percentage compositions of well-known compounds was different. The data themselves had changed." Not simply reconciling theory to facts, but in fact versa. While this is incredibly useful, it bothers me deeply. And this sort of dissatisfaction is not specific to now. Descartes in meditations said that “I realized there was not a science in existence that was of such a nature as I had been led to believe.”
 
And the answer about warning me my house is in danger is: it depends who warns me. It also depends the extent of the response that is necessary. And it also depends on what I see in it for them, because humans are human. One of the few constants in this universe. Do the villagers run out to deal with the wolf? It’s a damn good question. Which is the point of that story.  
 
No, it’s certainly not confined to scientists. But it applies to them as well. Whenever a group has authority to pronounce truth, I get edgy. And I worry more about normal human processes at work in an elevated group. At the same time, sometimes only an expert has a right to an opinion. One of my favorite stories by Heinlein has a line “you are none of you nuclear engineers, you are not entitled to an opinion in this matter.” There’s a paradox here that I haven’t resolved to my own satisfaction. The only guaranteed way to be a fool is to resist everything they say or follow lockstep.  
 
No there was an understanding of the universe. The ptolemic system had been refined for decades. There were explanations for why the planets wandered while the stars were different in their patterns. It was large and unweildy but it was there and had its defendants. The simple story of Galileo and the Pope masks that there were good arguments and intelligent men on both sides of the issue.
 
I bring them up not in an attempt to bludgeon anyone. In fact, all I’ve asked is the opposite: to not have those who disagree bludgeoned into silence and submission. All of those things are incredibly important and relevant to any sort of real inquiry into this question. Each of which is worth reading several books and listening to lectures to come to a fair stance on them. While I don’t claim to have the truth on all of them I have a fair right to an opinion on them. And all of them inform my decisions on what arguments convince me. Using “scientific consensus” is no less a bludgeon. I sought to introduce balance, nothing more. A real inquiry by an individual would have touch on all those things, otherwise it’s just picking a side. Which is part of why I’ve said multiple times: I don’t know and I don’t like the makeup of either team.
 
I disagree. I expect honesty. All of us have been led to believe that science=undisputable truth. Since childhood. And that level of belief is unwise and unsupported. Atlatlista argues that science has never claimed that, I disagree. Look at how we use the word “science” and its related vocabulary. Look at how we respond to science and devalue other things. Note how archeology and paleontology must be “science” not history. I am not “anti-science”. In fact, in my field, I argue that we need to use more science instead of useless dithering in multiple theories. I don’t support postmodernists or poststructuralists of any of that rot. Science is a very valuable thing. But it is not what its most fervent advocates say it is. It must be properly bound and its limitations acknowledged. And I said it once but it bears repeating : trust engineers more than scientists.
 
Possibly. I do find that BBC and PBS tend to do a better job of presenting legal cases, I do not have enough knowledge to measure their discussions on this subject. I don’t know. But if funding introduces bias, as was argued, it must also be considered here. In fact I’d go a step further and say that power  and money both introduce bias, and power and money on both sides of this issue are large. I really don’t see one side’s bias being less than the other.  
 
Where the funding should come from is another damn good question. Hell, even if the funding was better spent I’d be happy. Business expense account abuse and grant money abuse are…depressingly and terrifyingly similar. I don’t claim have a solution, how to get humans to behave ethically around large sums of money is an age old question. But the danger of it must be noted. Humans will behave like humans. Scientist, priest, businessman, lawyer…it doesn’t matter. Humans are human. C. S. Lewis wrote “that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor in earth”  
 
I live on a graduate student’s stipend in NYC. I’m well aware of financial difficulties for lower levels in academia. But the reality is that grant money is horribly horribly abused. And the plain fact of the matter is that whoever pays at a minimum has influence over whoever recieves. Usually more than that. It’s why academics look down on private funding as they think it biases the results found but, thanks the marvelously supple human psyche, they avoid that thought when working with grant money from the government.  
 
I am truly not seeking conflict. I try hard to understand both sides of an argument and it bothers me when one side is treated as composed of fools. Another quote: "no matter what side you are on, you will find people on your side you will wish were on the other side".  
 
I think it's important to be able to disagree respectfully, part of that requires having a modicum of respect for the opposing viewpoint. If we can't manage that we will inevitably wind up angry, hurt, and no further along in understanding. That is my entire goal in all this. And I see intolerance and true belief on both sides of this.

As a historian, I resent that. Let me quote E. M. Forster on my discipline:
 
 
It is pleasant to be transferred from an office where one is afraid of a sergeant-major into an office where you can intimidate generals, and perhaps this is why History is so attractive to the more timid among us. We can recover self-confidence by snubbing the dead.
 
--- E. M. Forster
 
At least i think it's Foster. Posted by a friend somewhere else, and I liked it.

I say, did you even read the Foster quote ?

I agree with much of what Student says. Especially the idea that science is not always the dispassionate review of facts and data. In reality the human element, i.e. money, pride, control etc, always play a larger part than some might want to admit. Please feel free to correct me Student if I've overstated what you believe. You have stated my own beliefs much better than I could have so I won't bother in trying to to elaborate.
 
I have lovingly given it my very own term. Agenda-science. That's not to imply that there is always some kind of grand conspiracy involved within these scientific circles. Most of the time it's just people being people. Selfish, arrogant, money hungry, power tripping, or simply afraid to go against the majority; people.  
 
On the other hand do I find it strange that people like Al Gore fly around the world in their own private jet all the while portraying himself to be the prophet of environmentalism? Sure. Does it seem fishy to me that he's spent so much time pushing the "green" movement, cap and trade etc and just happens to be heavily invested in companies that will reap huge profits from these things? Sure. Everyone should be suspicious. Follow the money.  
 
http://news.investors.com/article/475461/200904291857/cap-and-trade-al-gores-cas h-cow.htm?p=2

Water World .. here we come  ..  
De-forrest  and build your ark before it's too late.  
Man made .. no .. man contributing  .. sure.  
Mighty man thump chest and make the trend reverse .. not a chance  
 
Get out your waders .. the water is on its way.
Followed by snowball earth epoch.
Repeat until sun flares out and consumes us ..  
 
Good luck with changing global weather epochs

The "clean coal" ads they run constantly on CNN drive me buggy too.   Modern burning methods are slightly cleaner in terms of sulpher dioxides and such, by means of "scrubbers" used on stacks.  They don't do a thing about carbon, which is curently the problem.
In fact, the proposed test-bed "clean" generation facility that had been planned was cancelled by the Bush administration as being "too expensive".
 
I saw the plans for plants of this type in a Popular Science article.  Very nice... Carbon sequestration and all... But very complex and very expensive.    You can only do sequestration in certain areas with certain geological formations.
"Cap and trade" always impressed me as a shell-game.  
 
It's true that the production of solar panels produces various pollutants.  However, not carbon.  Although currently more expensive than fossil fuels in terms of kilowatt-hour for initial expense, once they are in place and running you need only pay for maintanence, and not much of that.  
They are quite clean, but the problem is energy storage.   When the Sun is shining and everything is running, it's great.   We need low-loss transmission technology and storage that will keep things on "the grid" at a stable level.
Wind is potentially huge and there are many areas with sufficient constant ambient wind to power large sectors.   Again, transmission and storage need to be factored in.    
Nuclear is problematic, as we have seen.    It can be less so.  There are designs for plants that have very low risk and high efficiency.  Problem is no one is using them.
Our nuclear industry in the US is a hodgepodge of different designs put together by different groups and operating under different political realities.  
A single, high-efficiency plant design built to a standard model would be muchly preferrrable.
 
As I said before, the real problems are complex and involve politics and money more so than the actual mechanics of energy production.
The fossil fuel industry is enormously profitable, enormously wealthy, and can afford inordinate political influence and propaganda.  Individuals like the Koch brothers have spent many millions on concerted programs of disinformation about alternative energy production, so that they can continue to make high profits.
At least in the US, we have some functional regulation and control.  In much of the world, the word "exploitation" hardly describes what goes on.   In more than a few nations, government cronies line their pockets with oil-wealth monies while the populations suffer from pollution, miserable working conditions, land-grabs, and poverty.
 
There are those currently who have simply thrown up their hands.  It's too late.  There is already sufficient carbon in the atmophere that we cannot stop or slow global warming in a time-frame that would have any effect.  They say what we have to do is learn to cope with the effects.    
And the effects are going to be severe.   If sea-rise levels even approach projected figures, we may loose huge quantities of coastal lands.   This would include many of the world's largest and most populous cities and it's true as well that a very large percentage of the Earth's population lives along coastal areas.
 
The potential for population migration, civil strife, war, and so forth are very high.    
We humans tend to be short-sighted.  Our governments even more so.   If they can get through another election cycle it's OK.  "Not on my watch".  Let the other guy worry about it.   With luck, disasters will fall when the other party is in power....
I won't be around to see it, but we might give a thought as to what we're handing on to our grand-kids.

I find the lack of trust in 'science' depressing, but not surprising. In any case, the U.S. will not be the first to hurt badly should the effects turn out bad. I think in about fifty years we'll see one of two lines about this in the U.S. history books:
 
1. Scientists attempted to subvert the American economy with scare stories of global warming.
2. Despite warnings from western scientists the Chinese continued to generate excessive amounts of pollutants leading to a world-wide crisis.
 
Well that's ok then. There's always someone else to blame  . Whatever happens it will not lead to the 'end of the world' except possibly in human conflict.
 
The 'worst case' scenarios that get all the head-lines are that in a reasonably precise statistical sense, and are by definition  not very likely to occur. The only reason they are worth considering is because the consequences, should they occur, are significantly unpleasant.
 
So if, as I  expect - and hope - these worst case scenarios do not occur, don't smile and think "that's one the scientists got wrong" because that would not be the case.

The Gibbering Council.  We're doomed.

Everything I've seen about this heat wave has basically said "this is what global warming will look like" not "this is global warming." http://www.weather.com/news/global-warming-summer-20120703

Quote from jlasud on Jul 7^th, 2012, 2:03am:

 
lol. Truth.
 
It's supposed to be above 100 here today and the humidities pretty high too. This is unusual because normally, living in a temperate zone, it normally doesn't get over 90. Thankfully we still get frequent rains, (several this week) so the Corn and other crops still look good. I heard on the news it wasn't working out quite as well for the Mid West farmers, hopefully they get some more rain soon.
 
It's also supposed to drop back down to the 80s after today so that should be nice.

Quote from Morphy on May 13^th, 2012, 5:36pm:

 
I'm with you, Morphy. And the motivations of lots of big climate change proponents is TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT. All the more reason to think that they're full of s#!t.

Friend of mine who's an investment banker, hard as nails, and holds a PhD in biology, told me that man-made climate change was as sure as established; and he really feared for his children, and his grand-children. As simple as that.  
 
[edited for spelling]

The tragedy here is that to reduce industry and transportation emissions would create lots of new work and lots of new jobs, like new challenges always does.

Quote from wanderer on May 20^th, 2012, 10:57pm:

 
My lack of trust is in the men behind the science.  There has already been a big scandal with Climate Gate. Sure I want what's best for the earth.  I really do.  I just don't think giving these blood sucking elite even more power over our system is the way to do it.  It's always problem, reaction, solution.  Tout some huge fear, steer the reaction and provide the solution that you wanted in the first place.  Science is wonderful, people suck. Period.

Quote from Masiakasaurus on Jul 8^th, 2012, 2:16pm:

 
Aye! Hear hear.

Exactly, and as I noted as well.   Working scientists are hardly in the wealthy and privileged class; they are generally underpaid and much of what they do could hardly be done at all without grants and such.   That's where the politics come in... If you happen to be working in an area that's not popular with the current administration, or your institution isn't properly "connected", you can go begging.
 
I listen to Science Friday religiously, have for years.  This is a multi-award-winning show that has always managed to interview the guys actually making those discoveries you see featured in the news each week.  
Where most media outlets will simply read from the press release or perhaps have a "science reporter" make a call or two, host Ira Flatow is almost always interviewing the actual researchers making the news.
Even if they are dreadful interviews or don't speak particularly good English....
 
Anyway, scientists at this level come across as vastly enthusiastic, vastly interested in the why and the wherefore of why and how the universe works, and not much else.  Certainly not politics or fame or money.
 
I think the idea of evil scientists manipulating things behind the scenes is a movie and literature meme that's been around since Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein as a sop against the dangers of technology.

I'll admit now, I've read none of the previous thread, but I just want to shoot out a question to those who disagree that the earth is primarily warming now due to human action.
 
Let's say you're wrong, the earth is warming primarily due to us humans and our activities in the last few centuries. Then what? How can we fix our mistakes? We need to act now, sooner rather than later. Does it make sense that we should err on the safe, rather than sorry side? Assume for the betterment of our earth and species that there are dangers we are facing, and work to change them, lest we risk being wrong and cause damage?

OKAY...Y'ALL HAVE TOUCHED A NERVE!!!  Do you mean to tell me that humanity...as insignifiant as it is in a universal way, is actually resposible for global events??? GET REAL!!! All I have to say is PROVE IT!!! Show Me!!! C'mon, show me.!!!! I want you to show me actuall proof that humanity is responsible for "climate change"!!! Show me how, over trillions'a of years of climate change, humans have made one iota of change to our climate!!! I'm pissed as hell at all this climate change bull*&%t . Do you actually think that humans are resposile for climate change??? If you do...then tell us why...back up with actual proof...not some sort of computer "model". Tell you what's the truth folks, I don't k now jack about climate change, but I've got sense enough to know that humans just don't rate when it comes to any influence on climate.
 
Ohhhhh...lest we forget, the Ice Age ended...are you going lead me to bwelieve that the Neanderthals were responsible for that??? Furthermore...explain why I find fossils of tropical plants embededded in low-grade coal here in Kentucky??? This global warming business is nothing but a scam!!!

Quote from kentuckythrower on Jul 13^th, 2012, 12:14pm:

Greenhouse gases are a real, observable, and demonstrable phenomenon. Some molecules trap heat more than others, and CO₂ is one of them. People have had a definite impact on the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. There is almost 1.2 times the amount of CO₂ in the air as there was in 1850, so there is consequently almost 1.2 times the amount of CO₂ caused warming. The accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere is exponential, so we see bigger and bigger jumps in CO₂ levels every year. One way we know this is by mathematical modeling but air samples that are put through spectrographic analysis confirm the results.
Quote:

From the US Government Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
Humans are only insignificant on a universal scale, on a global scale we're a pretty big deal.

Quote from Thearos on Jul 8^th, 2012, 9:00pm:

 
No Sir, scientists are not the elite.  Read my previous posts.  Scientists do take money from the elite and elite run groups.  This is not news, it's been this way for a long time.
 
I imagine these same arguments were had decades ago about Global Cooling, and likely those in favor of a more balanced look at the issue were likely disregarded then as well.  Mainstream science has ever had a selective memory that even politicians would envy.  It's human nature I guess, and not "Science's" fault.  It's mankind's absolute refusal to learn from past mistakes and constant insistence that "we are more wise than our forefathers, it can't happen to us."  
 
Let me play devil's advocate for a second.  Let's assume A) That humans are the main/only cause of Global Warming.  B) Such a rise can not also be attributed in part or as a whole to natural fluctuations in the Earth's climate, as it has fluctuated consistently in the past, and there is rock solid proof that it does not play a part this time.
 
Let's move past the "if" for a second and focus on the solution.  How would you guys go about fixing the problem without destroying the sovereignty of nations and in America at least, the private sector?  The floor is yours, I'm all ears if anyone feels like tackling that one.

Quote from Thearos on Jul 15^th, 2012, 2:37pm:

 
/facepalm
 
This is why we need to study history so we can learn from it.

Quote from Morphy on Jul 15^th, 2012, 1:38pm:

 
The bad thing here is the belief that denying, or even hesitating about climate change is "balanced" and noble. It is not-- no more than hesitating about Holocaust denial (or gravity) is "balanced"-- a clear result of the way in which US media always claims to be balanced, and has difficulties pointing out truths, and lies. There is a clear scientific consensus right now.

Kyoto was proposed in 1997-- 15 years ago. All the pointers have simply intensified since then.

    Did we cause global warming?  No, it would be happening without us.  But we've greatly accelerated it and are continuing to do so.  What can be done, Morphy?  The sun shines all over the planet.  There are many ways to harness its energy.  Besides solar panels there are currently solar power stations.  Spain is into them big time.  They work great.  You take a field of parabolic mirrors and aim them to reflect the sun at a tank filled with either water or oil.  http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~shih/succeed-2000/roadmap/solar%20power%20plant.htm
Free energy, there for the taking, everywhere.  
    We could greatly increase the number of wind turbines currently in use.  Easy.  
     Hydroelectric power is always an option.  Nukes also produce power without making greenhouse gasses, but of course they have their own set or problems.  
   Iceland is into geothermal power.  It works quite well for them.  
   This is just off the top of my head.
   Everyday across the planet the sun shines, rivers flow, the wind blows, and the earth cooks just a few miles below the surface (in some places much less than that).  The technology to use these resources has been with is for over a century.  Sadly it's repressed because the oil lobby is all powerful and will remain so until they've caused the end of life as we know it.  This is the whole truth, plain and simple.  
   I mean no one any disrespect, but the stakes are huge here and we're failing miserably.

The problems you list are real, Mas,  but not much has been invested in solving them.  The energy is there and can be used once we get down to doing it.  The stumbling block is the oil lobby, which has more money than God to sabotage research into alternative energy sources.

Quote from Bikewer on Jul 16^th, 2012, 11:19am:

I wouldn't call 20,000 bird deaths per year in the US entirely inconsequential. It is a low figure now, but if we plan to expand wind farming that number will most definitely grow into a major problem. I'm not saying that the deaths far outweigh the need for electricity, but it needs to be solved before true large scale implementation of wind farms. Assuming 900% growth in wind farms (a conservative estimate, as wind farms are currently a very small part of the US's energy production) would more than double the number of birds killed each year for power generation and that doesn't include any projected increase in the number of power lines in the US or an increase in the turbine density of wind farms. http://energyinformative.org/wind-energy-pros-and-cons/

Vos omnes tam sancti estis quam vultis

 No apology necessary, Morphy.  I can appreciate what you are saying but then what's the solution?  If we do nothing or we've failed our children and grandchildren miserably.  Not just failed but condemned them.