Posted on 04/03/2002 9:57:45 AM PST by cogitator
Will you please read the links I am so politely offering to you? Your criticism is outdated. Furthermore, Hansen is doing a fine job of truly examining both climate and emissions trends and coming up with answers that aren't nearly as frightening as those being touted by global warming scaremongers. Which doesn't make him a friend to such extremists. And for that reason, and a record of honesty in the face of pressure from three successive presidential administrations (during which each time he presented results contrary to their policy positions; the previous Bush Administration even altered his testimony to Congress), I think he's an excellent source. So does Patrick Michaels.
I'm interested in your comments on the proposed use of jet fuel additives to introduce particulates into the upper atmosphere to partially block solar radiation as a mean of controlling warming. At an estimated cost of $100 million per year, it is by far the cheapest method.
Your solution isn't politically correct -- it doesn't attack the United States or capitalism, and it actually places partial blame on a communist country. The Left, the UN, and the press will never go for it.
Climate change is a natural ocurrance, and has happened millions of times in the course of this planets' geological history.
Innumerable species have survived such climate changes, as evidenced by their existance today.
Change is inevitable, and those species that adapt to change survive.
That does seem a bit early. I vacationed in Phoenix in spring of 1995 just before Memorial Day, and that year they were remarking on how temperatures hadn't broken 100 yet. It was pretty reasonable then.
I don't know that I buy global warming. The same people forty years ago were predicting global freezing. And if there is, I don't know that I buy that it's caused by human beings. And even if it is, I can't say that it would be a bad thing. So, it is quite probable the correct remedy is to do nothing. 
I'm generally opposed to technological fixes that are implemented while underlying problems aren't fixed. That's why I favor controls on black soot emissions: a likely measurable effect on warming and a simultaneous health benefit.
Plus, there would have to be some good pilot-project (no pun intended) research on this idea to prove that it works and doesn't cause unintended bad environmental consequences. But I don't think the idea should be dismissed out of hand. I also don't think we're at a stage where it's necessary. I may think differently in 20 years.
Solar variability is a natural cycle. As for evidence, I only assess what scientists are analyzing. There is a general concurrence that some of the observed warming is human-caused. That conclusion is based on models of what would happen if we weren't burning fossil fuels for energy compared to what we are doing. It's called "attribution".
There is no doubt that there are natural cycles that cause warming and cooling. That's what makes attribution difficult, separating the natural from the man-made. The current conclusion is that some of the observed warming is attributable to human activities.
By the way, there's also no doubt that increased atmospheric CO2 maintains higher global temperatures. The initial increase in global temperature may have a different cause, and the increase has climate effects that lead to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Once in the atmosphere, the CO2 acts to maintain those higher temperatures, like a thermostat, until another climate effect causes temperatures to come back down. This is a basic statement of what paleoclimatological studies have determined. If you want more detail, ask and I'll try to help.
A: His lips are moving.
There is overwhelming evidence that this world is rapidly advancing into an ice age, and the pagan fools continue to scream about warming. - I'd do the things that the fools say cause warming, but unfortunately, they are really the cause of some of the cooling.
There must be some frost impeding the operation of your thermometer. - We frequently have such temperatures in the inland bay area, and we're 500 miles north of you and a couple of thousand feet lower in elevation. - Back in the 50's it would hit 120 F. in Walnut Creek at least 4 or 5 times per year; now it never makes it that high.
BECAUSE THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES DECREASED FROM THE LATE 1930's ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE EARLY 1980's ....
More "scientific garbage as lies" from the liberals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.