Global Warming: Not So Bad?

So now we can all eat tit and move to Iceland.

So outta all the data showing ill effects come two very shabby positives. Well then what are we waiting for. Emission resctrictions, blah who needs em!

What a pointless and rediculous article.

Your article is grossly misnamed. The three small potentially non-negative outcomes of global warming you cite do not constitute the title "Global Warming: Not so Bad?".

Although there is still much room for predictions to be true or false, the potentiality of the predictions coming true presents such a grave threat to the world, that the light-hearted nature of your article is UNACCEPTABLE.

Secondly, who begins an article with the word "so" (except for manipulative commercials)?

whoever wrote this deserve chuck norrises foot up there ass. these are pussy ass positives, not to mention the simple fact that the glaciers melting means the death of polar bears, shutting down the gulf stream, making the ocean stagnate, remaking one of the great extinctions, and the death of many animals. heh, if were so ignorant to this than maybe we deserve this.

With the skyrocketing energy prices and the credit crunch affecting more and more of us, it is no wonder that we are becoming more reluctant to act even if we don’t fool ourselves into a false skepticism about the human causes of global warming.
In hard times people will look to any excuse to either avoid or even acknowledge their responsibilities if it costs them. Global warming, or more accurately, climate change is a fact Even though we in Western Europe are not feeling the full force of it yet, it does not mean it is not happening. The evidence is growing, yet, as it is said, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
Mother Nature has been around for billions of years and will always survive. What is not certain is our survival. We are talking about saving our home - the planet earth. We should make sure that our home is still habitable not only for our children but their children too.
In short, we have to reduce our carbon footprint and our ever-increasing reliance on fossil fuels. High oil prices of recent years will go a long way to achieve that in part, this is a simple case of economics in action, but this will take too long. Rather than implicitly punishing us through global economic forces, possibly strengthened by green taxes the best way to achieve our goals of continued human civilization would be to harness those same economic forces and incentivise the general public to take action.
There are people and organizations out there that are just doing this. If you have an opportunity to install a large wind farm in your local community, you can set up a Community Sustainable Energy Company. This is an idea used in Holland and elsewhere to galvanize and reward communities. However we may not all have such opportunities afforded by strong local community spirit or abundant local renewable energy resources. Another novel way is to harness the power of the internet and join the global community. For example, there is a company called Solar Energy4All, who are offering people the opportunity not only to save on their electricity bills but at the same reduce the amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere, by installing solar photovoltaic systems in areas where sunshine is in ample supply. You can buy their Solar energy Certificates for as little as a good meal out €55, which entitles you to the electricity generated by a solar PV module in say sunny Greece to be set off against your electricity bill no matter where you live. So it’s like living in southern Europe in terms of solar energy, only sadly without the direct benefit of their climate. Mind you, if we don’t act soon, the UK’s climate will start to resemble that of the Mediterranean – which sounds nice, but takes no account of the enormous global economic disruptions that will also happen.
As electricity generation is responsible for nearly 40% of all CO2 emissions, it’s a great start. And it’s a start that we can all make to our individual and collective benefit. Don’t wait for the politicians to solve this – show the politicians that this is really a case of power to the people.
So why not visit their website, www.solarenergy-4all.com do yourself a favor, do mother nature a favor and above all do your children a favor.

Some posters like to talk about "fact" but let's talk about what is and what isn't fact in the global warming discussion. Fact is, Mr. Almozaffar, "climate change" occurs but there isn't any evidence to demonstrate that human-created emissions have caused it. And, I noticed that you have conveniently changed the name to "climate change" because of the FACT that the world has cooled over the past 10 years. So, the extremists have come up with a new vocabulary to suit their desires.

Bottom-line, I don't feel like typing page after page of rhetoric to counter this nonsense. However, if we DO buy into this scam, we will see significant damage to our prospects for survival. Millions will die because energy will not be available to them. Famine will increase. Governments will wield more power. And, the temperature will continue to rise and fall as it has for time immemorial while we foolishly believe we are manipulating "Mother Nature". Don't be suckers, readers, and learn to think for yourselves; the scaremongers want you to fall in line behind Al Gore and ruin your life for the sake of nothing at all.

Mr Arkansas Toothpick you are an idiot.
What moronic redneck BS have u been reading that shows the Earth has, lmfao, cooled over the last ten years. Before coming in here and sprouting BS, read data first, think second, then dont just flog off what foxaganda tells u as ur own.

1) The reason for Global Warming having its so called name change is due to the fact its not just warming of the planet via greenhouse gases that are the concern. IE polution, cutting down rainforests which changes rain fall paterns etc.

2) The average temperature over the last 30 years has increased and in the last 7 it as seem to be steady.

3) I will refer to a previous post i made and sumaries.
IF CO2 is soooo F'en good. Go live on Mars.

As Sam Almozaffar put it when in a pinch ppl will use any and all means of self deception to aviod the truth.

let me tell u one other truth about truth. This is how it goes.

New truths go through three stages.
Stage 1 - They and the believers of this truth are ridiculed and laughed at as dreamers and extremist.

Stage 2 - The truth and its believers are violently opposed by the authority of the time.

Stage 3 - The truth is self evident.

Pretty sure it was Einstein that said this.

One more thing.

The next idiot that says "think for yourselves" Then goes on some BS rant that can only come from the lips of the Lord of Idiots O'Rielly and his scumpossy at foxaganda. I am going to F your PC up. No more internet for u. U ppl are idiots.

IDIOTS

I applaud this article. Thank you PopSci for some basic science around climate change.

I think the world will continue a gradual and normal change when it comes to climate, and there are a number of things we can learn from this transition.

The global warming CO2 cultists who will threaten to ban people from the internet only shows they are like religious zealots, and they can't be trusted with the truth.

Within the next 50 years, we will know the truth, and nature will adapt to it as it has done for millions of years.

#$@!...oh, no...$#@@...my internet connection is getting cut off...$%^...

TheRHogue

May I suggest to all of you that if you want to learn more about this subject, then please read some very informative articles on the subject:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/johncoleman.asp
by John Coleman

Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Have your say Read comments
Last Updated: 6:01pm BST 30/04/2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml;jsessionid=TXM2KOS2L505TQFIQMF...

Some of us have decided that there are some very severe problems with the currents (popular) Global Warming theories.

Thank you dogbert for the articles with a different perspective.

I do believe that humanity should try to limit its footprint on the environment. Also, I totally support alternative fuels like electricity and hydrogen. However, even scientists don't agree on the issue of global warming and CO2. It seems to me that scientists are only looking for the data that will support their argument, and aren't really looking at the "big picture". One actual fact to consider is that the earth has gone through natural heating and cooling cycles without the influence of humanity.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Lots and lots of CO2 (as on Venus) creates a runaway greenhouse effect and boiling temperatures.

Unfortunately for the global warming crazies, there is only a tiny-itty-bitty-little-bit of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. You see, it isn't just the presence of CO2 that causes warming, it's the DENSITY. There simply is not enough. To say man-made CO2 is warming the planet would be like me trying to warm a tub of cold water by dropping a warm marble into it - impossible.

On Earth, it is solar activity as well as water vapor and the oceans that account for our warming and cooling, not CO2. The Earth warms and cools in cycles, always has. They have discovered ancient farms under the retreating glaciers in Norway. To say that the TINY bit of CO2 humans put in the air has ANY effect on global temperatures is just bad agenda-based non-science.

P.S., Al Gore has made millions and millions and millions off the global warming fraud. Next time you question the motives of a scientist who is "in-the-pocket" of big oil, question the motives of Al Gore who got rich selling worthless carbon credits.

You've been had people.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Lots and lots of CO2 (as on Venus) creates a runaway greenhouse effect and boiling temperatures.

Unfortunately for the global warming crazies, there is only a tiny-itty-bitty-little-bit of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. You see, it isn't just the presence of CO2 that causes warming, it's the DENSITY. There simply is not enough. To say man-made CO2 is warming the planet would be like me trying to warm a tub of cold water by dropping a warm marble into it - impossible.

On Earth, it is solar activity as well as water vapor and the oceans that account for our warming and cooling, not CO2. The Earth warms and cools in cycles, always has. They have discovered ancient farms under the retreating glaciers in Norway. To say that the TINY bit of CO2 humans put in the air has ANY effect on global temperatures is just bad agenda-based non-science.

P.S., Al Gore has made millions and millions and millions off the global warming fraud. Next time you question the motives of a scientist who is "in-the-pocket" of big oil, question the motives of Al Gore who got rich selling worthless carbon credits.

You've been had people.

4_teh_lulz

You write so much but write anything new. You are so sure that global warming is caused by humans that you insult anybody that disagrees. I am amazed that this is the best method you have to make people agree.

I believe you are ignorant and you intentionally leave out or modify information to make it fit your theory. For example, why have other planets warmed up at the same time as Earth. Go look, you will find this is true. Could it be the sun. WOW, the sun can cause planets to warm up.

You admit that the planet has not warmed in 7 years but then dismiss this fact. According to you leader, Al Gore, we are already dead which would tell me that there has been no stopping the warming. You really should do some research on this scam artist. Research what companies he owns (carbon credit company) and ownes stock in (ethenol companies). No wonder he pushes these "solutions" to global warming. You blindly follow this man. If the media would do their job this would be told to the public so Al Gore could be put on trial and put in jail for fraud.

It only makes sense... the climate has always changed over time, and it always will. Adapting to climate change, is far less costly than trying to reverse nature. If you can't control weather, which you can't, how can one expect to control climate anyway.

If every power plant, vehicle, and factory were shut down the effect on climate would be minuscule. But the effect on our existence would be profound indeed.

Global Warming is about political power, and taxation. It has little to do with science. Except to keep those grants coming.

El Nino is climate, La Nina is weather

More than a million years ago, before scientist generally believe humans walked the planet, and certainly before human activity could conceivably have influenced the climate, there was a giant sheet of ice across what is now the northern US and Canada.

For some non-human reason, the planet warmed enough to melt those glaciers and create, among other geological phenomena, the Great Lakes.

So how could have human activity have caused the massive change in global climate and temperature? When someone can explain that to me, I might be more willing to join the Church of Global Climate Change.

By the way, imagine the condition of the globe if that climate change had not occurred. Nature has its own ways. To assume that we as humans can materially change the planet is akin to the flea climbing up the elephant's leg with sex on its mind.

Thank you PopSci for bringing rationality to the blind faith of zealous climate change believers.

I find it interesting that those who believe in man-made global warming almost always fall back on name calling and not on a reasoned well thought out argument. The minute one begins to believe that the science is settled one is not using science. Science constantly tests and retest any hypotheses as more information becomes available.
develop a logical, rational argument or consider yourself more a believer than a thinker. Name calling only makes one look foolish and convinces no one except a weal mind.

My question for those of you concerned about anthropogenic global warming, now known as "climate change", is this: "What is the ideal temperature, or temperature range, for the Earth?" If you cannot answer this, then how can you maintain that any change in temperature is "good" or "bad"? It's been about 35,000 years since the last ice age, and it's certainly warmer now than back then, when the upper third of the U.S. was under a mile or more of ice. Is this "good" or "bad"? The warmer temperatures of the last decade are not as warm as during Roman times. Are today's temperatures "better" or "worse" than then? With climate change there will always be "winners" and "losers", be they plants, animals, or humans. And so finally, what governmental body--be it the U.N. or anyone else--should attempt to direct human behavior to set the world's thermostat at a given level?

My question for those of you concerned about anthropogenic global warming, now known as "climate change", is this: "What is the ideal temperature, or temperature range, for the Earth?" If you cannot answer this, then how can you maintain that any change in temperature is "good" or "bad"? It's been about 35,000 years since the last ice age, and it's certainly warmer now than back then, when the upper third of the U.S. was under a mile or more of ice. Is this "good" or "bad"? The warmer temperatures of the last decade are not as warm as during Roman times. Are today's temperatures "better" or "worse" than then? With climate change there will always be "winners" and "losers", be they plants, animals, or humans. And so finally, what governmental body--be it the U.N. or anyone else--should attempt to direct human behavior to set the world's thermostat at a given level?

Apologies for the duplicate posting.

I notice that every article I see that includes even a lick of science these days gets mercilessly (and usually profanely) attacked by global warming fundamentalists.

Why is the introduction of science so threatening?

First, a note about spelling and punctuation. Those of you commenting in semi-gibberish text speak, e.g., "u r a looser [SIC], lol!" immediately undermine your credibility and predispose the reader to believe you are morons. Of course, it's not as if your messages tend to disabuse one of this assumption, so it may actually be a useful sign post for the discriminating reader.

Rather than repeat the propaganda you are spoon fed by your teachers and the popular press, try reading up on the controversy (the amount that humans contribute to climate change is highly disputed), then sound off intelligently. This article is interesting. Bjorn Lomborg's skeptical-environmentalist observations are interesting. Richard Lindgren, an MIT professor, has interesting observations as well.

Try reading some stuff posted at this source, which has a collection of materials both skeptical and alarmist: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

man made global warming is a joke.

In my opinion, the real problem is over crowding. We should melt Greenland and move in.

Climate changes are inevitable because the Earth is in an unstable equilibrium. I personally don't believe that man is causing climate changes any more than any other animal, and besides processes in nature tend to bring conditions *back* toward a stable state. For example, increased CO2 causes plants to be able to grow faster. What is more important than my opinion is the need for handling the issue with intellectual integrity. Anyone not just parroting propaganda has to admit that the extent of our effect on the environment is debated. The article didn't attempt to deny that climate changes were occurring but instead pointed out that the effects of those changes may be less than some have predicted. Climate change has been happening on earth for a long time without our help, and if there wasn't large scale adaptation, all life would have been extinct long before there was any global warming discussion.
One nice coincidence is that while much of the debate over man's impact centers around pollution and emissions, everyone on both sides of the issue recognizes that it is important to find more sustainable energy sources than fossil fuel. Anyone who has tried to breathe in Los Angeles knows that zero emissions vehicles would benefit people as well as the environment. If we all share many of the same goals regarding environmental responsibility, do we really need to have cloned opinions?
Regarding the title of the article, I for one appreciate a little optimism regarding the future. Good article overall.

Discuss Energy Environment Issues :
Energy Environment Forum
It will be great to have you there !

While the increase of a molecule of CO2 for every 10,000 of atmosphere has virtually no effect on mean temperature , the obvious upside is that plants , being essentially CO2 + H20 , love it . Many estimates put the increase in plant growth already at about 15% .

And by the way , dense CO2 cannot explain Venus' temperature ; it actually radiates more energy than it can possibly receive from the sun .

-- www.CoSy.com --

The ideal temperature for earth? A temperature such that it's snowy in the winter, nice in the spring, hot in the summer (but not to the point that people are dying of heatstroke), and cool in the fall.

Here in New Jersey, having 2 feet of snow is extremely rare. There hasn't been a big blizzard since the 90s.

So yeah, the planet is definitely warming up IMO.

Not to mention that even if pollution doesn't directly heat the planet, car exhaust sure does stink, as does all the sewage running under your feet when you walk in a city like Philadelphia.

Reducing our carbon footprint will make for nicer living PERIOD.

IlyaK1986 Wrote:

"The ideal temperature for earth? A temperature such that it's snowy in the winter, nice in the spring, hot in the summer (but not to the point that people are dying of heatstroke), and cool in the fall.

Here in New Jersey, having 2 feet of snow is extremely rare. There hasn't been a big blizzard since the 90s. "

So the ideal global climate is based on what would be ideal in the jersey area? Screw everybody living in Svalbard or somewhere along the equator... as long as the weather is nice in Jersey then everything is peachy.

wow! I did not know there were so many people out there who still opposed to the notion that human activity can actually alter our planet's climate!

Actually the scientific community has strong evidence that this is the case. It may seem otherwise if you listen to Fox News, Glenn Beck, and some witty bloggers for long enough, yet the great majority of scientists all around the world (you know, those people who actually know about this) believe we are altering the Earth's climate with potentially damaging consequences. Even president Bush recognized this last year when he said: "...the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded both that global temperatures are rising and that this is caused largely by human activities."

This article is irresponsible as it undermines the widespread detrimental effects of the unmeasured exploitation of our planet's resources.

The increasing temperature trend ended in 1999, and the earth has actually cooled over the past several years. Solar output maximums explain this warming trend, not CO2 concentrations, which have increased over this period.

Polar bear populations have been increasing over the past 30 years.

While some northern glaciers have shrunk, sea ice around Antarctica has actually grown over the past decade. Even the northern ice pack grew this past winter.

We have had no serious hurricanes the past three years.

Warming has historically been a good thing for all life on Earth, including humans.

Global Warming hysteria is a quasi-religious movement that has filled the void in a post-Christian left. It's reliance on junk science will be its down fall.

Damn, there I was thinking that people got more educated over the facts of Global Warming. When I read these comments of anti Global Warming ppl I couldent belive the ignorance.

Man made global warming? Well, how about 100 Years of industry? has no effect???

Look up Edward Mazria even tough he was bribed by the Gov he left lots of Statistics on how Man-Made Global Warming is a fact.

And then saying Global Warming is a money maker? Contrary, keep poluting the enviroment is a money maker, change costs money.

Saying Global Warming is nonsense, is saying that the Entire Europe is just dumb in beliving in it.

There is lots of confusing science facts to disprove Global Warming, ever tought why? Because there is money to be made in continueing what where doing. China as a small Example.

Earth is not going true a repeating cycle that happend 50 years ago, thats nonsense.

And by saying that we should not pay attention to Global Warming is saying that we should keep exployting, destroying and damaging the enviroment. Because if there is no fear of retribution we will just keep doing what where doing, and thats excatly what this generation wants you to belive, because they will not see the when its going to affect us, but our children will.

My english is not good, so my apology for that. But science facts as an argument dont intrest me, because all that science is still in the beginning stages to disprove or aprove of global warming. I go by logical toughts, that our industry is exponentialy destroying the enviroment, global warming is one cause.

Now, I'd like to also say to those ppl who disbelive Global Warming or that Enviromental damage is not as important as is said to be (Quote: According to Al Gore we would be all dead), that I think you guys probaly belive also that George Bush is doing the right thing?!

The Majority Choose George Bush, The Majority Dosent Belive in Global Warming... Does that makes sense? :)

I find it hilarious that the only well thought out, properly typed responses here happen to be those who don't buy the hype.

I used to buy into it, but logic and real hard science proves that it's all a sham. Yes the euros eat it up, but that means nothing. The European community also denies the fact that their widespread use of diesels is thought to cause warming the the polar ice due to the black soot that is ejected into the air and has been detected in the ice. Granted the US uses diesels too, but not under the idea that it will reduce impact on the environment.

As for bringing Bush into this, that's laughable. This isn't Left vs Right. This is Informed vs Propagandized. The propaganda being that global warming is anything more than just Al Gore's money maker. This coming from a former supporter of Mr. Gore.