U.S. Chamber of Commerce Seeks To Sue EPA Over Global Warming

I wonder if Glenn Beck and other Global Warming deniers are paying for the laywers for the Chamber of Commerce?

It is about time that some took a closer look at the "evidence" for global warming and realized that it a bunch of bull. More people need to awaken to the fact the carbon emissions have never been linked to temperature and that global temperatures are not rising.

I am against such an idea as putting climate change on trial.
How would such a thing be judged? Do scientific hypotheses require legal standing before they are accepted or dismissed? Who would be on the jury?
I could see it could be possible to challenge individual scientists on their scientific conduct from a legal perspective but I fail to see the merits on putting AGW on trial.
The reference to the Scopes Monkey trial is a really poor precedent since despite winnning the argument, Scopes was (correctly) convicted under the law which wasn’t repealed until the mid 1950s and evolutionary theory allowed into school biology textbooks. The law was the problem but the judge had no choice but to uphold the law.
I can understand the frustration of climate realists with the bias of the media and the behavior of some prominent scientists and institutions but going to trial is no way to solve the question of whether AGW is real or not.
We have already had in the UK the case of Simon Singh who was successfully sued by chiropractors for labeling their beliefs as effectively “deliberate and targeted dishonesty”
I believe we should keep the law and science apart, lest we find scientific theories made illegal by misguided jurors and jurists. For more information, visit this site: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/08/21/freighter-world-cruises-adventurer/

What we need to understand is that this theory has yet to be proven / accepted as fact. Lets allow the facts to unfold before we continue to create legislation based on theory.

No matter how sound a theory IS, there will always be sceptics. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is obviously a sceptic. If the global warming theory is such a solid fact then it should be easy to persuade their opinions with the facts and evidence alone.

(Not saying that I agree with either side but,) some actually believe that the theory of global warming was created only to pass legislation.

Personally, I believe that we are leaving a bad impact on our planet. But, we need to understand all sides of the debate in order to make a sound decision.

Not exactly a unbiased article. I'd expect biased quips and jabs from FoxNews but not from PopSci. You're better than this...

Carbon Dioxide levels have been 1000 times higher than current levels, so the current so called global warming science is flawed.

Christopher Alan Fields - Muncie Indiana 47302-5222 USA

pranachimana said:
"If the global warming theory is such a solid fact then it should be easy to persuade their opinions with the facts and evidence alone."

I don't agree that that is necessarily true. The Theory of Evolution is a solid fact, but there are many people (some of whom are in the US government) that are not persuaded by the overwhelming evidence. Just because facts and evidence exist does not mean that people will be easily convinced by it.

Popular Science is too biased and ignorant, that's why I will never subscribe to there ranting and untruthful science reporting.

Christopher Alan Fields - Muncie Indiana 47302-5222 USA

dodeka,

Last time I checked it is the "Theory of Evolution" not the Law of Evolution. Sorry but evolution is still an unproven theory. Try again.

Lets say that the earth is warming, why is that a bad thing? Are we that arrogant to think that what we have experienced in the immediate past is the best? Just recently, they found alligator fossils in the arctic, so at one time, the earth was warm enough to support cold blooded life on the poles. How do we know that isn't better?

Dodeka,

Please, enlighten all of us with your evidence of macro evolution in order to validate The Theory of Evolution.

You can sue anyone for anything, and evidence can be forcibly requested by subpoena. I see nothing wrong with compelling the AGW crowd to present their evidence in a court. The USCOC represents many companies which stand to lose profitability if the EPA designates the gas that supports all plant life on Earth as a pollutant. A case for loss is proposed, and therefore the suit is likely much less "frivolous" than the EPA would like to believe.

pranachimana and AreYouKidding,

I can't believe that I'm being asked to defend Evolutionary Theory on a science website. I also can't believe that I have to point out that "theory" is a pretty strong word in the scientific community.

That's all -- it's just that I can't believe what I'm reading. I'm not going to attempt to prove Evolution to the two of you. Read a book or something.

Yeah, so kstauff, what about the billions that the companies that support the cap and trade bill stand to make from carbon limits that the EPA says will not actually do anything for the environment. Some one stands to make money no matter what happens. The only difference is who makes it.

dodeka, I don't think they disagree that evolution is the leading theory. instead, I think they are trying to point out that a true scientist questions everything and that there aren't "indisputable proven theories" there are only "theories that haven't been disproved or shown inaccurate yet"

there are no facts only interpretations...

This is what you get with decades of sub-par education and virtually non-existent science-education here in the US. You get a bunch of dumb, illinformed buffoons, debating what had already been firmly established decades ago the world over.

Advancer, that does not change my original point. True, there are very few facts, but there are still widely accepted interpretations. Just because you have lots and lots of evidence supporting a widely accepted interpretation (i.e. Evolution), does not mean you will be able to easily convince someone of it.

Thank you blaxpear, you make a wonderful point. So many people believe everything that they hear on the news and don't even find out for themselves. All you have to do is spend some time researching the subject to see that global warming is just not happening.

kingoftown:

I doubt that anyone profiting from cap and trade could be said to be producing anything of value for society. Fortunately, Cap and Trade appears to be limping in the Senate, and if it is passed at all, it will likely be further watered down than it already is. As it stands now, it does not address what it's proponents hope, which I think is laughable to begin with; it only stands to increase energy costs during a time of economic hardship for most taxpayers.

I do agree that blaxpear is correct about the abysmal lack of science education in the US. It becomes expensive and even dangerous to leave a relative few in charge of the mysterious field that is science. The devotion that AGW researchers exude to defend their predictions is reminiscent of the Church's excommunication of non-believers. That's a dangerous precedent in a field that should foster skepticism and critical analysis. Sadly, many in society have conceded their critical thinking skills to the Ivory Tower, presumably because it's too hard to think this through for themselves. They get what they deserve.

One other thought I had regarding this law suit. When it comes to facts, the USCOC may very likely be able to quantify to a high degree the impacts of the regulations which will come with the EPA's designation of CO2 as a pollutant. I'm not so sure the same can be said for the global warming crowd. Not only do they not seem to agree on the possible effects, their own predictions have failed to be realized. That's not going to look good to a judge or a jury compared to a set of balance sheets that show the very real increased costs of doing business under such regulations. Should be fun to watch.

you have got to be kidding......... money-mongers fighting for the oil companies trying to head off the new emissions standards... they are trading the future of our planet for money in their pockets now. "who cares about the earth 50 years from now, we will all be dead" seems to be the mentality of anyone agreeing with this pile of BS....

Ahhh, Popsci...over all of the editors desks hangs a diploma from a staunchly libral, evolution sponsoring University. OBVIOUS!

dodeka, i apologize it seems we are not on the same page. my comment and the others i was defending were directed towards your phrase "The Theory of Evolution is a solid fact". any true scientist will agree with me that theories are not facts.

you can argue semantics but the bottom line is that theories evolve through scientific advancements and discoveries. no theory is bullet proof nor indisputable.

Yay! It's about time our government properly questions the warmers. In the future the warmers are going to be remembered as a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts.

I'm going to have to agree with some of those above - there is still a large body of flaws in believing that full scale evolution caused humanity. I do suggest you read the works of many scientists who don't belive that anything other than micro-evolution is real.

Okay, it needs to be said because your editor certainly isn't doing it. Here goes.

Stuart Fox, the tenor of your articles demonstrates that you are a narrow-minded, condescending, self-important, sorry excuse for a journalist. Or science writer. Or whatever you call yourself.

Rather than simply report science, you go out of your way to interject snide and derogatory comments dismissing those who don't hold your rather narrow views as closer to rocks in evolutionary ascension. You may think you are illuminating us with your exalted opinions, but what you are really describing is how high a wall your lofty hubris perches upon and how ignorant you are.

An example from this article: 'Considering all the evidence that supports a link between carbon emissions and global warming, the Chamber should have called it "the OJ Simpson Trial of Global Warming."'

Any mouth-breather with half a brain can find numerous peer-reviewed studies that refute the common claims about the so-called link between carbon emissions and global warming, or at the very least, question whether there is one. So far no one has credibly demonstrated a link, though the computer modelers like to imagine that they have. The jury of real scientists is still out...studying what causes regional and global climate change with open minds.

Then there's the more egregious example from an article you wrote that someone at Popsci decided not to allow comments on. Remember that? "Most Comprehensive Poll to Date Finds Americans Actually Love Scientists, Science." (July 9, 2009)

Unbelievably, though the poll you cited showed that people from all walks of life and belief systems have a strong grasp of science in their daily lives, and look positively on science and scientists, you chose to insult those people who didn't agree with your--I'll say it again--very narrow view of science.

Here's you: "So if anti-evolutionists and the global warming denying tin-foil-hat crowd don't understand science..." Yes, that must be it. Those of us who have very reasonably taken the time to inform ourselves on climate studies don't understand science. The thousands of scientists around the world who have signed public statements and spoken out against the murky tide of global warmism--putting their careers on the line--must not understand science.

Sorry Stuart. I think not. I think it is YOU and those of your ilk who do not understand science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the real world. In many areas of study it is conclusive, in others it is still searching and learning. Unfortunately, just like all other topics fizzing in the froth of 24/7 media coverage, the interpretation of science is skewed by biased and opinionated people with loud voices or influence. Problem is, some of those people--like you--are gallingly ignorant of their bias and erroneous presumption.

If I were running a layman's science magazine, I would hire journalists and writers who knew how to report science rather than editorialize; who knew how to fascinate their audience with the wonder of scientific discovery rather than interject their own stupid commentary and insult a large group of readers. Guess what? Lots of people are fascinated with science and your juvenile insults won't change that, though it might compel them to move on to other science web sites and magazines that are more welcoming.

Go back to journalism school. Or swallow a large slice of humble pie. It will do wonders for your science.

So is the Earth warming, yes or no?
Are Humans causing it to warm faster?
Is the warming a natural process that the Earth goes through and has gone through over millions of years?
If you don't believe evolution to be fact, then what do you believe? Where did humans come from?

Try to be civil and friendly, just curious what people think =)

Good comments. Law of Evolution? Theory of Evolution? Semantics. By now there is little to question as there are no other alternative explanations that can corroborate the observations of (at least) the past two centuries since Darwin.

Evolution is necessary for survival and reproduction, the endgame of all living organisms. As you age, you are evolving mentally. You learn things. You filter them out. You become wiser. Who doesn't want to be wise? Just like evolution. Unnecessary or evil genes are filtered out, which is why we don't all look like cave-people today. Of course, evolution takes longer. Millions of years.

Some of us simply haven't grasped the FACT that we HAVE evolved and those who claim otherwise simply have not learned enough. Okay, maybe evolution isn't the perfect explanation. But I think it's the closest we may ever get especially since it's very possible that "We [may never] know a millionth of one percent about anything."

Believers (as in those who shun science almost entirely) aren't even qualified to present a counterargument. Why? Because they don't have enough evidence, let alone overwhelming evidence. Some of us just can't admit that their ancestors were more creature than man. Is that wrong? Is that such an insult? Please put aside the pride for once and be reasonable.

Don't you think it's mighty shifty that the "field" of Scientology has a root word that is certainly not representative of what that root word means? Even the Vatican has evolved with these "environmental sins." Seems like evolution also plays a part in our behavior. Surprise.

Still think evolution is just another explanation? Please watch Nature or even better, Planet Earth, and tell me you're not the least bit swayed.

With regards to Global Warming, I was all for it's validity. I am still a warmer, but as more information is being gathered, I have toyed with the possibility that GW may not be entirely our fault. There's still more to learn obviously. But I think we can all say that our goal is not to blame GW on a certain someone, something, whatever. It's just bad for Mother Nature, so why don't we get to the effin' point and just clean up our act? Our moms told us to clean our rooms. When we look back, I think we can safely say (save for those with mom issues) that mom was right. We need to take more responsibility for our actions. It's as simple as that.

Don't be surprised that when the time comes (hopefully soon) when businesses or policymakers somehow finally find incentives to go green that are actually more profitable than the dirty practices of today, those dirty scumbags will be begging for a green revolution, stat.

poopshoop....

To say that those who disagree with your views "have not learned enough" is just ridiculous. Have you attempted to study any other theory then that which you so strongly believe? All sides of the argument provide what they suggest as substantial evidence to back up their theory. Biased minds are not so easily converted, especially when the provided evidence is flawed.(this refers to your strong opinion as well)

Another intriguing theory comes from those that believe we were genetically engineered. If I remember correctly, their theory is based on Sumerian hieroglyphs and artifacts, as well as biblical reference.

This is just another example of the many theories that attempt to answer the questions. "Where do we come from" or "how did we get here." Before we all get into a ranting argument about these questions, we must all subject ourselves to humble and open minds.

Wow, just wow.

Those of you who are on here from just the last day or so, I am assuming that you signed up just to put you "well thought out" ideas here to refute this above article.

As this is a site frequented by people with a scientific bent and sometimes obsession, I would like to point out to you that your arguments are thin and fairly weak.

Coming here and attempting to refute Evolution with that Macro micro crap is a joke. There is no difference. None.

Evolution is evolution, if you find this scientific theory unpleasant because it conflicts with your preconceived notions about what your personal god would or would not do, that is your own problem. Please do not try and pollute science with it. And do not try and claim that ID is anything even close to science. It is Creationism in a mask and a poorly constructed transparent mask at that.

As for the Greenhouse gases causing global worming there is irrifutable proof in our own solar system.

What is the hottest planet in the system?

Venus :
The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).[30] This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,[31] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.

Now the issue of at what rate our involvement is necessarily responsible for any global warming may be debatable to a certain degree, but there is an effect. To come here and claim otherwise for some silly partisan reason is foolish. This is not the forum for that.

mitEj:

I appreciate your analogy with Venus and Mercury, but I think you'll agree that the chemistries involved are radically different from Earth, not to mention the distance from the Sun which you correctly distinguish between Venus and Mercury.

There is no debate on the Greenhouse Effect. It is a well-known phenomena and is essential to keeping the planet warm enough to support life. The real issues in the realm of Anthropogenic Global Warming theory are ones of causation and degree. Personally, it seems that since CO2 has a higher capacity to store heat than N2, O2 and water vapor, it follows that more of it in the atmosphere might permit a higher average global temperature.

But the atmosphere is of course not static. There are uptakes for CO2, including of course plants. The ocean also stores large amounts, and it has in the past. Looking at the geologic record indicates that there have been much higher concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere, and yet life flourished. Further, how heat circulates and how it radiates back to space is not well understood, as even the modelers will admit. We are still learning how ocean currents react to changes, and we can only theorize how cloud formation and thunderstorms may prevent absorption and transmition of heat through the atmosphere.

So as laurenra7 correctly states, the science isn't settled. The predictions of the models have yet to materialize in reality, and setting policy based upon incomplete science is, well, stupid.

Can't we all quit arguing?! Don't you people know that the best way to get to the bottom of these global warming and evolution questions are supreme court cases?

The bottom line is that if the government is going to pass regulations it should be based on some hard scientific evidence. Will the court case truly confirm which side is correct? Absolutely not, but the government shouldn't mandate any regulations until the truth is found.
If that prevents the government from passing cap and trade bills who cares? I mean, do you really think any law the government is going to pass concerning the environment is going to have a positive effect on the world?

For those believing the science of evolution is settled, I invite you to the Creation Evidence museum near Waco, TX. I saw there dinosaur tracks that overlaid human tracks, along with other interesting evidence I doubt you have ever seen. God made plants, animals, Earth, and people. There is evidence in the fossil record.

As for carbon dioxide causing global warming - carbon dioxide is a trace gas in our atmosphere. Temperature is not held by it. Go to the desert. There it is flaming hot during the day and cold at night because of a lack of humidity and clouds. Greenhouse gases are called greenhouse gases because they help plants. More carbon dioxide is more plant food. It feeds plants on the ground and in the ocean. The global warming promoters refuse to have a scientific debate. When there was such a speaker coming to Congress, when an opposer to the agenda was also invited, he was refused entry. There is no science there.

@semperloco

Are you for real ?

You have shown in every line of your post that you do not even have a 2nd grade equivalency in scientific education.

Why are you even here on this site I find it difficult to believe that you have the understanding to follow the vast majority of the articles on this site.

Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The main greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In our solar system, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33°C (59°F) colder than at present.[2][3][4]

Go. Just go and don't come back. If you are incapable of this much comprehension you can bring nothing to any adult conversations here.

MitEj,
this is a typical response from a libral evolutionist. "If they don't believe in evolution then they must be retarted." Unfortunately that argument doesn't go very far in convincing people that evolution is true. There are a growing number of highly educated people that are finally starting to see past the "wool curtain" and notice the ENORMOUS flaws and failures of both the evolution lie and the supposed global warming fear mongers. What you don't understand and probably will never admit outloud is that there are highly scientifically minded individuals that don't swallow the Kool-Aid of evolution garbage. Please don't play the "intellectual high ground" game. You will lose.

Wow, I read the articles on popsci everyday and never make a post. After reading the comments for this article, I am thoroughly disgusted. Could "intelligent" people that care about science and innovation actually think that global warming doesn't exist? Are all these commenters on someone's payroll? I hope so. If not, it would be apparent that people take the ravings of far right wingers way too seriously. You can't believe everything people say! I am a republican, but I also make up my own mind on things! Get educated and/or listen to your conscience. Then maybe you'll see the flaws in your arguments.

@trueperspective

I am sorry, have you ever had an actual scientific discussion before?

You will see where I posted information gleaned from reliable sites that can be fact checked and cross referenced for veracity. Also that all of the information I posted was based off of easily verified measurable data.

That is how a scientific discussion is supposed to go, not some silly threat that you will crush my science with your belief.

Also the comment about the level of the individuals education had little to do with their comments about evolution, though I do find fault with that. No it was their erroneous definition of Green house gasses and poor understanding about what they were posting that brought that out. You should have been able to infer that from the posted data.

As to your assertion that I am on the intellectual high ground . You are correct. I am indeed on the intellectual high ground based at a minimum on my ability to think for my self, and comprehend observable phenomena.

And before you ask, I do believe in God, I also believe he/she gave me a mind to think with and that no other man woman or child needs stand between me and my God.

You clearly believe otherwise, luckily my belief is strong enough that the beliefs of others has no bearing on it.

I think there are a lot of legitimate reasons to reduce air (and water) pollution, "man-made global warming" is not one of them.

As KStauf mentions above,we know that the C02 levels have been higher in the past. We also have physical proof that our planet has been both much hotter and much colder than it is today. These hotter and colder periods predate the invention of the internal combustion engine, coal-fired power plants etc. So exactly how do these computer models prove that this time it's man's fault?

And not signing on to the man-made climate change bandwagon doesn't make me some kind of uneducated mouth-breather or evil. Just means I give more weight to what we have learned in fields like biology, botany and geology, sciences that use things like core samples to see what the environment was like in the past vs. "climatology" which uses computer models with lots of assumptions in them and a relatively small amount of data (considering how long Earth has been around and changing). I'll go with the facts and physical samples every time.

Bravo for the Chamber of Commerce! Let Al Gore testify under oath. Allow him to perjure himself, along with Hansen from NASA. Put Waxman and Markey on the stand as well. Before we drive all manufacturing and production capability out of the country, give the working men and women who actually make things an opportunity to protect their jobs. I wouldn't mind the opportunity to avoid the horrific taxes that come with cap and trade. Ask the people of Spain how cap and trade is working for them.

i agree with mitEj

pranachimana, trueperspective....(read a book)

"To say that those who disagree with your views "have not learned enough" is just ridiculous. Have you attempted to study any other theory then that which you so strongly believe?"pranachimana

No Im sorry. I read your rebuttal with a humble and open mind and what you said is more ridiculous (subjective but true, and I know that slight sounds annoying, sorry). So you're saying that you've studied all the theories and that evolution just didn't bode well with you? That would be because YOU are the one with preconceived notions. First of all, I don't really need to 'study' any other theory. Unscientific huh? These other 'theories' have fundamental flaws that quickly eliminate them from the arena of plausibility. 'Whoa whoa whoa, that statement right there could be based on flawed evidence. Who are you to define what's plausible?' C'mon seriously? Read a book and try to be objective. I don't believe evolution to be true. I'm not forcing anyone to believe it to be so. I'm just an empiricist. Evidence doesn't lie.

Let me put it this way. If there were a race to explain our origins, EVOLUTION is and was always in first place because it has more evidence than all other theories. Course, like I said, race ain't over. I'm open to other explanations but right now evolution trumps all. Okay let me put it another way. In a numbers game where the largest number is the best, evolution is 100,000 trillion. Not THE largest obviously but for my analogy's sake, the largest to this day. The theory of (sorry, I mean the con that is) god and all other theories are represented by numbers smaller than 100,000 trillion. Why? Because they have less evidence.

"All sides of the argument provide what they suggest as substantial evidence to back up their theory. Biased minds are not so easily converted, especially when the provided evidence is flawed.(this refers to your strong opinion as well)"pranachimana

Well there you go. They 'suggest' that they have substantial evidence. Just like how a bunch of people saw Jesus die and defy gravity by rising up to heaven (a cloud apparently). True, the provided evidence may be flawed but not all of it. This isn't a criminal interrogation where one little lie may cast doubt on the integrity of the criminal's/witness's entire story. Oh and if being biased means being right, then yeah, Im biased. I am of the strong opinion that facts are real and bullshit is imaginary.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic about the genetic engineering and the Sumerians. The biblical reference means nothing as the bible is manmade and not meant to be taken literally. It's a great allegory that defies the LAWS of physics. And I think most of us here are pretty sure that the Sumerians didn't know what a gene was. Course, there's no evidence to disprove that but there comes a time when logic is employed and deductive reasoning suffices.

"There are a growing number of highly educated people that are finally starting to see past the "wool curtain" and notice the ENORMOUS flaws and failures of both the evolution lie and the supposed global warming fear mongers. What you don't understand and probably will never admit outloud is that there are highly scientifically minded individuals that don't swallow the Kool-Aid of evolution garbage."trueperspective

Now you see here, I agree with you. I could definitely admit it out loud. I know for a fact there are very intelligent people who think evolution is a lie or just flawed. But they're the fringe. And how ENORMOUS are these evolution flaws? Which ones specifically? Are they larger than say, god himself? Roasted.
How is it that strangers like us can argue about issues on the web? Science. How is it that humans have made so many advances? Technology. Know how. God was absent everywhere, every nanosecond. If the opposite were true, let's just not work and learn, drop what we're doing for 10 years and see where that gets us. Probably heaven. Double Roasted.

Anyone who strongly disagrees with me probably doesn't watch PBS.

Coincidentally, Republicans don't like it either. Fancy that.

Oh and I don't have a problem with god really, though I am a proud atheist and I don't flaunt that believe it or not. You grew up with it or you found him, cool. I BELIEVE religion is important and useful. It's those (fundamentalists) who gobble up televangelist psychobabble and Limbaugh that I'm more worried about. You know, the ones who gave up on being rational and have one-track minds.

Just returned from a two-week cruise down the Volga river in Russia where I observed a lot of new marinas full of cabin cruiser boats up to 140-foot yachts. Plus we saw a lot of streaking jet skis. Dachas appear to be growing in size along the river and may have air conditioning, although they did not need it this year due to moderate summer temps. Last year we did the river cruise in China and mainly observed barges without limit taking dirty brown coal to market, most of which will go up smokestacks and rain out end products over the Bering Strait, the Arctic Ocean, and Canada.

Frankly, I will bet anyone a case of Coors beer that the next three winters are as cold in North America as anyone has seen in at least a half century, despite all the Chinese pollution that produces pseudo-warming. I also bet that the Volga river freezes south all the way to former Stalingrad for the first time in decades. Also, I bet that every North American glaciers grows a little bit in the next three years. I will be back to work out details of the wager and delivery points, etc.

By Blaxpear: "This is what you get with decades of sub-par education and virtually non-existent science-education here in the US. You get a bunch of dumb, illinformed buffoons, debating what had already been firmly established decades ago the world over."
I couldn't stop laughing at this strange comment. Take a tour of one some day and you'll see that it is obvious that students from all over the world come to study at our science universities and institutions here in the US. MIT, RIT, RPI, Berkley etc...which are the best the world...else, why would they come?
Please look at the (firmly established?) arguments from 20 years ago by Al Gore and James Hansen. If such were true, ocean levels would much higher than they are now and I would have had a record hot summer here in the North East. Instead, we had had one of the coolest summers on record. Geesh, is there anyone else from the NE on these Blogs?

By Mitej: "As for the Greenhouse gases causing global worming there is irrifutable proof in our own solar system.
What is the hottest planet in the system?
Venus :
The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).[30] This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,[31] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.

Now the issue of at what rate our involvement is necessarily responsible for any global warming may be debatable to a certain degree, but there is an effect. To come here and claim otherwise for some silly partisan reason is foolish. This is not the forum for that."

OK, but the Earth's co2 level is still a fraction of one tenth of one percent. Far less than that of Venus. I understand that humans have probably caused an increase of about 120 parts per million co2 in the past 100 years. However, I still have not seen, on the pages of this magazine how this tiny increase is definately the cause of AGW. I'm simply not seeing the scientific proof on the pages of this magazine and certainly don't expect Stuart Fox to deliver...

Toyota moving out of California. Moving production to Texas and overseas. Will everyone in California have to starve before the envirowackos see that there is a plot to destroy the western world?

It's obvious to me that folks depend a lot on the remote control and things that they read. I don't know a lot but I do know that a person who climbs mountains would not argue that the glaciers are not melting away. I've watched them melt for at least 30 years now and I've seen with my own eyes the pollution-covered snowfields of which I have many photos. The pollution is mostly soot from burning fossils fuels.

I presently reside in Florida where there is plenty of evidence that the seas are raising into our aquifers. The Mohave and Sonora deserts are expanding, as well as others across the globe. Both flora and fauna are slowly moving further northward as temperatures become more moderate.

While there was an unusual cool summer in New England high temperature records were being broken across the nation. The Atlantic plays a large influential roll in the Northeast climate and during El Niño years the cooler temperature do tend to prevail…no surprise there. But here in Florida we had higher than normal temps while the NE was cooler, go figure.

What-all this has to do with gods or goddesses, the Titans or Flying Spaghetti Monster is beyond me, I think folks just like to get into those arguments to pacify their addiction. Send out the MeMe's and see who responds.

The 3nd rock is getting warmer and I'm sure that the addition of 6+ billion people can add to the heat. When they all want SUV's and 5,000 sq. ft. homes with three car garages and swimming pools its only going to get worse.

The Chamber of Commerce is the organization that wants to sell you all those wonderful consumables….of course they're going to fight for their economic lives. It doesn't matter if the court gives them what they want, as long as individuals are responsible consumers the CO2 will be reduced over time. Boycott businesses that are not responsible produces and watch how fast the pollution turns around.

OMG! Creationists have come to invade Popular Science! Lock up your children protect their intelligence.. the zombies are coming to eat your brain! LOL!

I'm going to start my debate not even factoring AGW.. Using proven oil reserves according to CIA and hypothetically oil consumption 1/3 of current usage we will run out in 133.6 years.

Total Reserves: 1,349,417,153,000 BBL
Consumption:  30,290,496,384 BBL/year

Under normal consumption: 44.5 Years
Hypothetical 1/3 consumption: 133.6 Years

Granted there are untapped resources which will be so expensive global economics will be crippled. Imagine no trains(which also transport coal), semi-trucks, cargo ships(transport oils & goods), and various other means of mass transportion. Trains are three times more efficient than semi-trucks and would lead to less road repairs everywhere.

Now I'm going to debate the Fauxtards and Deniers. Yes, we know the earth was warmer at periods of time and the 1700 ppm CO2. There are phenomenon we call the milankovitch cyle which are variations in orbital shape around the sun (proven by Neptune and Pluto planetary order change) and axial tilt (well observed on Saturn on it's side) of planets. The tilt is the cause of different seasons with stronger tilt making stronger differences. The elliptical shape changes distance from the sun.. which any intelligent person can conclude it's going to warm. Now onto the 1700 ppm with the strongest hypothisis due to frozen methane lakes (youtube it) melting from axial tilt change leading to stronger summers and winter. Methane over time decomposes to CO2 and water.

As you are reading this you notice slightly cooler temperature's than a couple (2) years ago. I will honestly agree.. which is due to solar cycles of sun spot activity which emit more energy as opposed to a calm sun which we are experiencing this year. It is 11 years cycles and NASA has been observing it due to swirling sun spots clashing together to form solar flares which have been known to destroy equipment. So in the name of protecting billion dollars worth of launching, equipment, and un-interupted communication it sounds like a damn good logical safety measure.

For my amusement.. I'm going to take a throat jab toward the Creationist Fundie crowd. Let's say Noah's flood really happened. We can all agree rain comes down as fresh water with un-natural instances of acid rain. Why is that 2% of 21,000 water creature's are able to change saline/salt environment without death onset? There are two possibilites.. 1) It never happened 2) Some super-natural never witnessed ever form of instant evolution snap of a finger and clicking of heels.

I'll call this the Scientific Theory of Noah's full of bullcrap. Unless, you guys would like to introduce another hypothisis. I'll have couple others peer-review it for it's validity.

I'd suggest this video for you to understand the meaning of Scientific Theory. Titled: The Tyranny of Evidnece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqznURlEWI0

MITej - just...I'm sorry. Just shake your head and yeah it's like talking to a rock.

You nailed it with the "wow" comment. I just move on.

Perhaps we all should.

My goodness, I guess I have to count myself a fundie and a creationist despite the fact that I believe the universe is 13.7 million years old and that humans are certainly primates which arose in a common line with today's chimps.

But what I don't accept is the idea that chance or probability are anything other than queer artifacts of human conscience. As mathematician Rudy Rucker notes in his 1982 book INFINITY AND THE MIND, space-time is fundamental, not isolated space that evolves as time passes, and he states: "on the basis of modern physical theory we have every reason to think of the passage of time as an illusion. Past, present, and future all exist together in space-time."

So in other words the concept of evolution as change over time is cut off at the pass. Nothing changes, and certainly nothing changes in either a probabilistic or a free will way that would create branching universes.

Physics is greatly simplified, as viewing space-time properly eliminates not only headaches like branching universes, but Schroedinger's mysterious cat, the riddles of the two-slit experiment, time-reversed light, and so on.

We are left appreciating the universe as we should, a perfectly marvelous always-existing, unchanging infinite mural or tableu in which everything is timelessly frozen, including the next thoughts we are about to think.

What kind of universe is this? It is a "given" universe in the most profound and thorough sense, suggesting a profound and thorough giver.

Whoops, meant to say "consciousness" not conscience of course.

This makes sense in the government system of checks and balances. Our country has to have staunch factual evidence for distinct, man-caused, global warming to have a firm foundation to fight law suits, etc. that may occur from this legislation. It seems that if we presume to use ANY, YES ANY scientific theory that is not well proven scientifically to produce legislation we are putting the cart before the horse. We would be setting ourselves up for disaster - tons of litigation against the government and possibly even destruction of lives to those who get caught in the cracks. If global warming theory is sound enough to be proven and implemented into legislation then it will be, so no worries. This proof process must be done to have legal legitimacy.

I personally say let's focus on efficiency, regular pollution control and regrowth/re-forrestation (present CO2 sequestration system) before exploring these more outlandish and expensive ideas. Cap and trade gives power over all this to an already corrupt financial system and threatens our national security by giving too much power and control to foreign countries or the U.N. - so no thanks.

Look people, since when has scientific theory been considered scientific law? I'm not even talking about the notoriously overused 'scientific FACT' which tries to be substituted for scientific law all the time in the scientific community. Real science is the exploration and discovery of truth, not the latest impulsive or popular or trendy theoretical or fractionally proved assumptions grandfathered in as scientific law. That, instead, would be considered superstition (e.g. - the world is flat). Anyone who undermines science by not providing thorough research and proof is doing the scientific community a great disservice and destroying the backbone of what science is. In other words - destroying science and generating sensationalism and lies. People, don't get suckered into all this blindly - let's be wise with our decisions.

Only the court of public opinion will matter.

If company "A" adheres to the CO2 restrictions voluntarily and company "B" does not, the consumer has the final say in the success or failure of "B" not the courts.

A clean environment will take personal responsibility in spite of the greed of commerce. Boycott States, and products that are produced there if they do not voluntarily regulate emissions. Boycott countries under the same principle. Boycott banks that finance these polluting enterprises and retail outlets that carry the brands.

If everyone took control of their consumption the result of what a court might do or not do would have little effect.

If the folks who tend to discount pollution as a threat to the 3rd rock want to continue to support the polluting countries, states and companies they will do it at a higher price and with less accessibility.

I buy green products now and if more people did the same the price of green would be reduced as the cost of pollution increases and the people who want to believe there is no environmental issue, pay for their position on the issue.

I pay more now for my green consumption, but in time the tides will be turned if more people hold polluters accountable.

Any one who believes in global warming has never been to the upper pennisula of michigan. The past two winters lasted for 6 months at least with snow flurries in June. This summer I was reading an article recently and of all the government scientists who state that global warming is in effect none of them were meteorologists. All the meteorologists say that water vapor in the atmosphere traps far more heat than CO2. I don't remember the ratio, but there is over double the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2. So I guess the question is who are you going to believe.

EricIQ-2 you are certainly correct. The next three winters are going to drive into oblivion the proposition that the trace gas carbon dioxide matters in the dynamics of real climate factor interactions in any degree whatsoever.

Yes, it will get colder. Yes, everywhere. Yes, for the next century or more, no matter how many coal power plants the Chinese or Indians decide to build, nor how many SUV's their newly-propsperous peoples decide to build to place on newly-built roadways.

The reason that rising economies will get away with environmental blasphemy is that the intellecutal elites of the West were, well, fools and liars would be about the kindest thing you can save of them, but I can think of really far worse descriptors.

I will not deny the fact that we humans are doing the environment wrong but have to say that global warming is a bunch of BULL. I you have read any books in school growing up this seems to be just another part of earths cycle it has. Maybe we are slowly falling back to an ice age or another part of the cycle the earth has gone through. Global Warming???? I think not.

Interesting that in the overall life of our planet 'Earth', 4.5 Billion years or so, The extremely rare phenomena has been 'Icecaps'. Only 4 to 5 times in it's entire history, short lived each time, and 'coming on' relatively quickly. The question scientifically studied, should be, "What causes Ice Caps". This earth is overwhelmingly prone to be Ice Free. That is it's most natural status. We just happen to live as 'Parasites', in a very rare event, a short lived 'Interglacial'. Are we, as mere mortals, with inaccurate temperature documentation in the 100 year range, going to prolong this 'event', even more self empowering, micro adjust it to the temperature WE desire? Apparently reality to many, only exists on TV shows. DaFlikkers

It's about time that objective evaluation take place in court. The facts will speak.