EPA Officially Declares Greenhouse Gases a Danger as Copenhagen Conference Begins

1,200 Limos and 400 planes travel to and around Copenhagen for this "green" initiative. Europe is not the place to get environmental information. Under Kyoto, Europe increased their carbon footprint. The US, meanwhile reduced their footprint. Maybe we should have a New York summit to discuss the reduction of our carbon footprint

So since the begining of time we have been breathing in poisen, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas. I got a great idea, how about the people at the EPA stop breathing!

So, 96% (arbitrary number) of life on earth is fueled by carbon dioxide. What a terrible evil thing. Let's tax it and make it expensive for everyone to breathe and drive. That'll get our economy boosted! No CO2 means more jobs! What a bunch of morons. It's like California exploded and and bits of hippy got into our politicians. And then they bred. Ugh.

Freudianslipnslide.blogspot.com

I just freaking love it when the government tells me what to do! More regulations! Fascists...

If by "growing urgency" you mean growing more strident or more panicked, you're correct. But if you mean more people are becoming concerned about global warming, actually the opposite is happening. More people are realizing that there's nothing to worry about. The alarmists are growing more urgent to do something before even more people discover this great little secret.

It will be interesting to see how The Collective propose to "kick our carbon habit." If we manage to do so, we would be the first living organisms in the history of the planet to sidestep the carbon cycle...which will be quite an achievement.

It seems as though they didn't download the emails yet from East Anglia. Prepare for taxation my fellow heathens.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Jeremy and POPSCI, it is about time you read your comments, and see that people don't want your propaganda. We will science, not pseudo science. It is best you give the market what it wants, or it will put you out of business just like it has others.

We will science is suppose to be we want science.

It amuses me when people will post quotes from Orwell in response to an article about environmental regulation, but don't seem so inclined to comment in alarm on articles about monitoring citizens' telephone calls or tracking their internet habits (or perhaps, the ethics of hacking e-mail accounts, though I don't guess most of you have a problem with that in at least one particular case, right?), wasting billions on missile "defense," or developing other technologies that demonstrably will decrease freedom and help authoritarian regimes. Speaking of authoritarian regimes, most of the posters here seem to be on the same page as the Saudi representative at Copenhagen today, insisting that the entire science of human influence on climate change itself had been called into question by the notorious e-mail incident. But of course Saudi Arabia is altruistically looking out only for the best interests of the rest of the world, and not it's own obscenely concentrated oil wealth. Good company to keep, huh? I'm not holding out a lot of hope for Copenhagen, but at least some steps are being taken in the U.S. and abroad to address a problem that blind denial won't cause to go away.

Mike_R have you ever even read any of the comments on any of the story types you listed that you say people don't complain about? People have ripped up all of those things into little pieces and spit them out. Most of the people here seem to have a very strong independent streak and aren't afraid to say so.

You seem to have a strong belief but I've never heard any backing for your beliefs. Every comment I've seen from you has been a litany of accusations and complaints but nothing else.

I've tried to explain my position as clearly as I'm able, please can you?

This email scandal seems to be conveniently close to these Copenhagen climate talks. I fear this is just a fabricated way for oil lobbyist to continue generating enormous amounts of wealth for themselves unhindered by global warming. Which in itself completely demotes scientific progress.

It amuses me that Mike R and vaddix are in denial about what these emails really say. Not only did these leading climate 'scientists' use fraudulent statistical techniques in deriving their infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, which has been the underpinning evidence the IPCC uses for the claim of man-made global warming, but these same climate 'scientists' destroyed the raw data used to create the graph. They also colluded to deny legitimate scientific criticism of global warming from getting a fair hearing by strong arming editors into blackballing these critics. As well, they colluded with the IPCC itself in covering up the caveats and the uncertainty in the whole global warming theory.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam.

Oh, and as for the EPA and the idea that CO2 is a pollution... The same CO2 we exhale and the same CO2 needed by plants for photosynthesis. How moronic. That's like if plant life declared oxygen a pollutant.

It's simple, really. Before all the carbon was put into coal deposits and oil reserves, it was in the atmosphere. And we had 3-ft long dragonflies and the largest mammal could fit in your palm. Hey, any guesses what happens when we put all that carbon back? In the mean time let's just hand the monopoly on clean renewable energy (where this whole thing is heading, in the end anyway) over to the Germans, Spanish, Danish, and Chinese! Let's keep mailing checks to Osama's best friends in Saudi Arabia! And let's call anybody who says we should do otherwise a FASCIST!

Fascism is government based on doing what is popular instead of what needs to be done for future generations. And for what, $100 per year in taxes? Your lack of common sense and foresight makes George Washington roll in his grave.

Oh, yes. CO2 is good for you. Good for the planet. Just walk into a room filled with 100% CO2 and take a deep breath.

Of course our atmosphere is not going to go that far, but it does illustrate how normally harmless gasses or chemicals can become harmful when their levels get too far out of balance with everything else in the environment.

Don't believe that humans could have that big an effect on the planet? Microbes can. They created most of the oxygen in our atmosphere back when the Earth was young. Surely 6 billion people with a lot of technology can have as big an impact as a bunch of microbes.

EParker and HBillyRufus both presented specious arguments.

No one is arguing that new technologies NOT be developed, but one thing for certain, there is less of a chance of developing those new technologies if a large percentage of our wealth is being transferred to the Third World via some inane cap and trade scheme.

Fascism is not government based on doing what's popular instead of what is necessary. That's a plain old democracy, but fascist governments often do what they think are necessary when it's contrary to what's popular.

Oh, and CO2 is still a trace gas that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Fascism is government based on doing what is popular instead of what needs to be done for future generations. And for what, $100 per year in taxes? Your lack of common sense and foresight makes George Washington roll in his grave.
--------------------------------------------------------

Wow. I'm not sure what to say about this ignorance. You really believe that what they want to do is only going to cost "100 dollars a year"? Since you want something done so bad how about you double your share, and I'll keep my share. If they can't even predict next weeks weather with great accuracy, then what the fonk makes you think they can predict what weather is going to be like in 50-100 years?

Also, you do realize that we wouldn't be here without "Greenhouse gases" right? We have to have something to trap radiation so this planet can support life. Lastly, if we didn't emit CO2, then we would have NO plants. If we had no plants then nothing would exist to take in the CO2 and break it down to sugar and O2(you know the stuff we breath in). And the whole planet would be dead. Everything. Have fun believing this pseudo science.

Mike_R, just because I believe that Global Warming is a fraud doesn't mean that I agree with War or not having privacy. All three of these things are WHY I HATE ALL GOVERNMENT. Left, right, black, white it matters not to me. Government makes problems so they can fix them and be the hero. Even though I don't agree with how the emails came out that doesn't mean that they should be ignored. If you had a friend come up to you and tell you your wife was cheating on you, would you care about HOW he got the information, or just the information that was revealed?

The refusal of alarmists to investigate the facts surrounding both climate science and the recently divulged fraud evidenced by the CRU emails demonstrates either a lack of intellectual honesty or a stubborn faith in their belief in "global warming".

While the truth is often painful to look at, it is necessary in the long term to examine it in order to move forward. The sooner the alarmist community comes to terms with the fraudulence of these researchers, the sooner the science can begin moving forward.

Until that time, any further blathering by adherents to this theory, whether on an internet blog, at a conference in Copenhagen or as an administrator of the EPA, is nothing more than so much hot air. The courts and the court of public opinion will settle this, and no amount of whining by these zealots makes their assertions true or worthy of discussion.

SCAM! This is just the tip of the iceberg for a very elaborate scheme that goes way beyond just the argument about greenhouse gases and climate change.

Google: Cap and trade big oil behind

Do it. And be prepared to boycott popsci if they don't have the balls to step up to the plate.

To HBillyRufus

A room filled with 100% CO2 is not what is killing you, it is the fact that there is 0% O2.

Just for grins, try spending about 15 mins in a room filled with 100% O2. Let me know how you feel.

lnwolf41 With todays technology why couldn't they all do teleconference thus saving all the fuel used to fly to coppenhagen?. Instead of spending bilions on reducing co2 why not spend billions on growing more trees,grass,bushes.
There is plenty of water around irrigate the deserts around the world.

It's not that we don't want facts researched and acknowleged. We do! We just want the facts, not some cooked up figures. Also going back to climategate, the emails also tell that other agencies, NASA, EPA to name two, uses the numbers put out by the IPCC to check there numbers. That means they could not accurately chech there caculations because they where checking them against false numbers. It puts a lot of years of gathering data back at square one because of it. Lets also not forget that when the EPA moved to there new building they threw away all there paper documentation, because the IPCC was a digital system that stored all there original data, oh wait the data was changed... guess the original data is worthless now.

Face it, you deniers aren't crusaders for truth in science, you're a tiny, powerless, whining attention-seeking minority, on a planet full of people who don't care about your consipracy theories. We're all too busy building wind turbines and solar panels and writing laws. Be honest with yourselves, you've already lost, and every schoolchild from now on is going to know that our burning fossil fuels caused a severe climate shift. Get used to it.

E, have you seen any of the latest polls?
www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx

This scam they call science is losing ground at a very rapid pace. People are beginning to realize they have been fooled. I'm sorry you're to naive to see that. Lastly, if I have anything to say about it you will not indoctrinate my children in to believing your propaganda. BTW, the US government was created to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Not to exert it's will where ever it pleased.

Ironic how terms like "zealots," "propaganda," and "indoctrinate" are thrown about so casually by folks who claim to be the reasonable one. But then again, proclaiming your independent thinking to the world while acting like you're in a high school clique isn't too reasonable either. It's really amazing how contentious a discussion of scientific research has become, though I suppose it shouldn't be, with the various vested interests involved and the human tendency to look for the easy way out (such as inaction) when faced with a problem. Anyway, I'm not arguing with these folks anymore, not when they've had preconceived notions about the whole subject way before a few controversial e-mails were hacked (with rather convenient timing, I might add) to produce supposed proof that the entire field of studying human impact on global temperatures was fraudulent. Kinda like claiming a faked fossil disproves evolution, if you ask me.

Some of my fellow posters have made a valuable point, though. The issue of global warming, and what to do about it, will indeed be decided in the courts and the court of public opinion. I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge, so for my part, I simply ask a favor from that segment of the undecided portion of the public with scientific curiosity, and which despite that fact read beyond the first few posts on this subject. Do this favor not for me or anyone else on this poster board, but do it for yourself and your children.

Don't get your information about this issue from anyone like me or any of the nice folks who've responded to me like a kennel of pit bulls on a steak. Instead, look for the least opinionated and most factually presented sources you can find. If you feel Popsci has become somehow politicized, go read articles from Popular Mechanics, Discover, Time, or Newseek. Better yet, get a little more scholarly, and read some of the drier articles on climate studies in Scientific American. If you want to see the original research, consult scientific journals like Nature, Science, and other scholarly publications. Check out old library books from the 1970s and 1980s on the subject of terraforming Mars by releasing extra carbon dioxide and producing other greenhouse gases to warm the planet -- this was before any scientific consensus had been reached regarding the effect of greenhouse gases on this planet. Google terms like "Solomon Islands," "sea level rise," "global CO2 levels," "melting glaciers," "Northwest passage," and "arctic sea ice" -- but again, look not for any blogger's opinion, but simply the facts. Ignoring public opinion polls, instead do a search for polls of scientists involved in climate studies, if you wish to see what the constitutes the majority of the best informed opinions. Also, avoid opinion blogs and editorials, left & right, pro- and anti-global warming, and just stick to finding as many objective news stories as you can on the issue (CNN, NPR, Fox, and network news is fine, just as long as you differentiate opinion from news reporting).

Having perused the best data available on the likelihood that global warming is occurring, and the likelihood that humans are affecting it, you should next see what are the likely effects of the proposed course of action or inaction. You can check business publications about the possible impact of climate change legislation, but also note articles regarding the opportunities the paradigm shift away from fossil fuels might provide for entrepreneurs and potential technological breakthroughs in energy production. Likewise, read articles regarding the projected impact of a 3-6 degree (farenheit) rise in temperatures on human civilization.

Having discharged your duty to be an informed citizen, now ask yourself if you think there is a greater than 50% chance that humans are contributing to global warming. If so, next ask yourself whether you would prefer to take action at the risk of certain sectors of the economy, or risk all portions of the economy and possibly human civilization itself, should global warming prove to be as real a threat as some of us believe. Regardless of how you decide the issue, if you have at least made an effort to decide for yourself based on all the facts, and not cherry-picked facts or the opinions of others, you've truly proven yourself an independent thinker and someone whose own opinion should be valued.

When did I ever say that someone has "faked a fossil"? If I had then yes, you might have an argument. And if that had happened, then yes, you should question it's validity. Also those terms that I used are exactly what I meant. If you're being forced to believe something, that has very little, if any real proof, then it is "indoctrination", and "propaganda". Would you like the definitions of each? I'll provide them anyway just so there is no doubt.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

And before you start saying that I'm a "Repubican", "Conservative" or whatever, you're wrong. I am an anarcho-capitalist. I believe in no government, because government is the very root of all evil. It's not easy to claim this, and stand behind it, if you haven't spent a few sleepless nights reading about this. Now, back to the point.

First you should ask yourself what science is before you say it is settled. Science is NEVER settled. EVER. If you have ever taken a college level science class you should know that. That is my field of study, as I'm an engineer. If we didn't question what was already told to us, then we would never have come up with the true model for an atom. We would still be stuck with the Rutherford model. What about Galileo questioning the church? Shall I continue? I have looked at the actual data time and time again. And it varies from .5 of a degree one way, to .5 degree another. 1 degree is not enough change to completely collapse an economy over. Or at very minimum stagnate it further than it already has been.

Second, you say look at stuff from the 70's. Well I have. They were worried we were all going to freeze to death in the next ice age. Did that happen and I'm not aware of it?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
I think we need something more than just a few GOVERNMENT funded studies that say this is happening and we're all going to die from it. What if we purposely melted the poles in the 70's to stop global cooling? That was just one of the many methods being considered.

It is time for you to take a step back and QUESTION EVERYTHING you currently know. Then if you still come to the same conclusion, more power to you.

Another good read if you care.
www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html

Thank you, Mike_R. I'm sure intelligent people can figure out how to find data on global warming. Unfortunately, as you've demonstrated, even reviewing the data doesn't seem to help unless you can interpret it and put it into perspective. Heck, the scientists at CRU had access to the data and still managed to weasel out an unprecedented warming trend by cherry-picking (as they admitted in the leaked e-mails).

I've taken a deep dive myself into sea level rise, temperatures, CO2, glacier melting, arctic sea ice minimums, Greenland and Antarctica, and unlike you I see no cause for alarm. It appears the globe may have warmed about 1 degree F in the last century and sea levels risen 4 to 8 inches (varies by location). The trends aren't alarming and look reasonably close to historical trends over the last several hundred years. There is nothing to indicate that the trends won't reverse as the earth has gone through numerous cycles of warming and cooling without human input.

There is a link between CO2 production and warming, but it's a logarithmic function meaning, all other things being equal (and they aren't), we would have to double the CO2 saturation of the atmosphere to get about a 0.4% (that's 4 tenths of a percent) increase in temperature amounting to about 2 F. Because we're still learning new things about natural carbon sinks and other mechanisms that inhibit the warming suggested by the math, it's likely that we'll actually see less than the possible 2 F warming. The only scientists making the unreasonable claim that CO2 production causes uncontrollable warming are the computer modelers who have a long way to go to refine their models so they reflect the real world.

The fact that the Mauna Loa CO2 readings continue to trend upward at a constant rate while over the same time period global temperatures have gone up, down and sideways is fairly convincing evidence that the correlation between CO2 and warming is weak at best. In fact, that's exactly what the science says. CO2 has a very small impact on warming compared to other factors.

As for your 3 to 6 F rise in temperatures, the evidence isn't there. There's a possibility, if current trends continue, that the globe may warm 1 degree F in the next century, but that's only an educated guess based on the last century's trend.

The best you can say about the science is that it's far from settled. There's a lot to learn yet.

By the way, all that out-of-control 1 degree of warming over the last century has been a good thing. In fact, a couple degrees of warming is a much better thing than a couple degrees of cooling, but it doesn't make much difference either way because humans have adapted quite nicely to both colder and warmer climates.

agrees with above.

Personal attacks and an unwillingness to acknowledge the flaws in AGW theory are the hallmarks of an impotent argument. When the best you can come up with to defend your case is to call those skeptical of it a "denier", it shows that you're not a serious person interested in truth. As I stated, your name calling and whining is not worthy of further discussion.

Mike_R:

It's not hard to see why you cling so tightly to your beliefs. Your list of authoritative sources reads like a list of left leaning rags. If you, as you seem to agree, the science has become politicized, then the LAST place you need to find information is from the likes of Time, Newsweek, Discover, CNN or FOX. While any of these are a source for some truth, ALL of them have their own agendas.

So I'd suggest checking, yes you guessed it, blogs. But not just any blogs. Find blogs authored by scientists like Gavin Schmidt, Roy Spencer or Anthony Watts. Find out who these scientists are and why they believe what they do. Find out who Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Steve Schneider and Keith Briffa are. While you're at it, learn about Richard Lindzen. When you do, you'll find that you have a much richer understanding of the issue and you can reach your own conclusions.

And when you're done, I'm betting you'll find that the evidence for AGW is lacking. Yes, you'll find some warming in recent years, and you'll find comparable warming at periods in the last few thousand years. You'll find cooling as well. But you won't find *anywhere* a proven link between the level of CO2 today and the warming that some scientists would like to attribute to it. The physical evidence simply does not exist.

Clifford Schneider

Hello. I am an average citizen and keep hearing that carbon levels are rising in the atmosphere. The last time I looked the atmosphere consists of 78%nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
and 0.9%argon. Of the the remaining percentage of atmosphere 0.03% is carbon. How does this small amount of carbon change the climate????

Okay, I have to add my two cents, if their worth that much.

I think people have problems with this whole climate change issue because the way it is being done.

First in school we were taught there was going to be a new ice age. We grew up with this notion. We were also taught that that there were ice ages in the past. These melted without us "contributing to rising temperatures".

We have heard and seen deforestation around the globe for decades. But we are not going to spend billions to plant natural C02 consumers, plants. That also produce food for the starving!

Oh no, let's let a company that does not pollute sell what they are allowed to produce to a company that produces too much.

No one here is stating we don't need to stop pollution. Anyone that has been to L.A. can see the crap we are dumping into the air. This is killing us, not rising temperatures. Stop the pollution by controlling it period. I have not seen the EPA clear California's skies even a little. But when big business and oil companies can make money off cap and trade and government investment in green technologies it is now a health hazard.

Don't tell us that the ice cap reflects heat back into our atmosphere and warms the planet and then tell us that it melting is going to heat the planet and turn everything into a desert. If the caps warm the planet and they go away the planet will then cool back down and it should refreeze. Sounds like a naturally changing process based on the information they have given us.

We have been told about overpopulation and starving people and we will spend billions on what? Not desalination plants, hydrogen and oxygen separation for energy, and planting crops to absorb the C02.

We have been expecting electric cars and green energy for decades. But they wanted to keep lining their pockets selling us oil. But wait, too much of that money goes to OPEC.

So if we could get the government to fund the creation of these green energy products we can keep more of this money and not have to spend the investment capital to make it.

Want to talk about timing? Funny how all this got real serious when Russia started pumping all that oil they have under them. Now we have to get away from oil.

Why are they not shutting down HAARP if this is so serious? It is designed to heat the ionosphere. Wait when did it start doing this? When did the temp start going up? Oh wait that is a different topic.

"Personal attacks and an unwillingness to acknowledge the flaws in AGW theory are the hallmarks of an impotent argument."

Oh, I missed that day in class, when the words "alarmist" and "zealot" are ok, but "denier" is a charged word. Sounds like you change your tune depending on which way the wind is blowing. You've done everything possible to use PopSci as a vector to prevent meaningful action on advancing clean, economy-building, renewable energy projects. (I wouldn't be surprised if you were a Chinese or Saudi national, and just on here to derail the U.S. economy). But it's not working, and never going to work, because we're past the "is it happening" stage, and doing things about it.

"Personal attacks and an unwillingness to acknowledge the flaws in AGW theory are the hallmarks of an impotent argument."
Oh, I missed that day in class, when the words "alarmist" and "zealot" are ok, but "denier" is a charged word. Sounds like you change your tune depending on which way the wind is blowing. You've done everything possible to use PopSci as a vector to prevent meaningful action on advancing clean, economy-building, renewable energy projects. (I wouldn't be surprised if you were a Chinese or Saudi national, and just on here to derail the U.S. economy). But it's not working, and never going to work, because we're past the "is it happening" stage, and doing things about it.
---------------------------------------------------------

Eparker, is this a joke or something? Especially the part in parentheses. Popsci pushes an agenda. Just like Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC and so forth. It is all about the money. What is funny is people here have given facts many times and you just hit the talking points. BTW, did you know it snowed the earliest it ever has in Houston?(www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html) Do you realize how far south that is? Lastly, it is funny to hear people like you talk. You do realize that warmer weather equals longer growing seasons further north. Which means more food for everybody. There is 1000 reason's why the Globe Warming might actually be beneficial.

It snowed here in Louisiana, too, thanks in part to warm moist air from the Gulf that in past years would not have remained fairly stationary in front of an oncoming cold front. Hence, snow as a result of warmer Gulf temperatures. Yeah, I know that these second order consequences of global temperature change can seem confusing, but the fact is, even as the poles get warmer, you may get some weird effects in the more temperate and subtropical latitudes.

But before I get too wound up on this, let me just thank laurenra7 for what has been the most cordial and well-considered dissenting opinion here. I'm sorry if you have reviewed the same data I have and reached a different conclusion, but if you did the leg-work, then I can only disagree with you on the most respectful basis as someone who interpreted the data differently.

I have to admit some puzzlement that the term "denier" is considered an insult in comparison to "zealot," when a poster does in fact deny that they believe a link between human activity and global warming, or in some cases, the existence of global warming itself. It would be like me being offended at being called a "believer" in the science behind human-influenced global warming, when I do find the preponderance of evidence to favor this position. It's certainly a rather extreme reaction to a term that does concisely convey the position. So "Denier" does indeed seem an appropriate descriptor for this position.

Addressing You, the undecided or ambivalent reader, I would like to point out that I have indeed invited you to consider all possible sources in deciding for yourself, as laurena7 and I have, either for or against the idea that humans have influenced global climate change. Note that others here have referred to not only every mainstream medial outlet, but also every respected scientific journal, as "left leaning rags." I find that particularly troubling. As you've no doubt seen from many of the postings here, if I were to take a contrarian view on any scientific issue, then refer to almost every source of information save opinionated blogs as agenda-driven and unreliable, I'd probably be told that I was paranoid and possibly delusional. And those who would say that about me would indeed be right. Do you honestly believe that all the major media outlets and scientific journals are biased in the same direction, just to mislead the public as part of a vast conspiracy? That isn't a sign of a well-balanced mind, and it seems more like the rhetoric you hear from Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and other reactionary ideologues than the thoughtful considerations of those who want science to provide the best information to the public, regardless of where it leads. I trust that you can do the research and reach an opinion on your own, whether or not you agree with me. Others will tell you that you should consider only the words of bloggers who themselves have a definite agenda, and not the "mainstream media," scientific journals, or reports from researchers in the field. You should always be suspicious of anyone who tells you to discount any information that might harm his own position, and consult only those sources which will inevitably lead you to agree with him.

Equally paranoid is the statement that government should be abolished altogether as evil and a hindance to the possibility of the utopian "anarcho-capitalist" society. Despite the clever little suggestions that I research terms such as "indoctrination" and "propaganda," when I actually hold a couple of degrees in history and poli-sci, it seems the poster in question actually has a poor understanding of government's role in the social contract with citizens. If you want an example of the joys of anarchy, look no further than Somalia or the the border provinces of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Or look to Europe in the Middle Ages, after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Government is perhaps an evil, but it is a necessary one when you compare it to absence of legitimate representative authority. It can become oppressive if the populace is not well-informed and engaged, but it can also be a useful tool for ensuring safety and prosperity if managed properly. Like they say, in a representative democracy, you get the government you deserve. If you abolish it of your free will, you'll soon find a willing warlord to provide you "protection" in place of the government you found so repugnant.

Dear reader, you will also see many herrings thrown up, such as the supposed consensus on global cooling in the 1970's, when some scientists raised concern about the possible affects of particulates such as sulfur dioxide in lowering global temperatures. However, that hypothesis was rendered moot by the necessary limitations on particulate pollution, and further research showing the potency of carbon dioxide, methane, some CFC's, and other atmospheric constituents greenhouse gases. Regardless, it was never as widely accepted as a viable theory as global warming currently is. Also, please remember that this isn't comparable to the volume of data we currently have, which does support the contention that humans are indeed influencing the global thermostat.

You've also seen the "agrees with the above" post, which of course corroborates everything I've said about the pack nature of the most strident members of the Deniers clique. I guess it probably should have been phrased as "Ditto," or "Mega Dittos," since that seems to be in keeping with the characteristics of this personality type.

But, at the end of the day, dear reader, I do reaffirm my previous advice to you to consult all possible reliable sources of information to make up your own mind. Always think for yourself. You don't want to go through life as a dittohead.

I have been over this time and time again. It's really getting old. Those states that you hold up as your poster child of anarchy have governments. By the very definition of government ( the organization that is the governing authority of a political unit; "the government reduced taxes"; "the matter was referred to higher ...
(government) the system or form by which a community or other political unit is governed; "tyrannical government"
politics: the study of government of states and other political units) they drug lords that occupy and control that land are the government. That is as close to anarchy as the United States government. Please enlighten me as to what I'm not understanding in the 'government's role in the social contract with citizens'. I would really like to know.

Since you're so informed please tell the audience how much the temperature has varied in the last 150 years? Also that completely ignores the (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period) medieval warm period in which we were considered to be some .75 C higher in temperature than we are now. We currently don't know how much of an affect the sun has on the warming. Lastly we don't know that GW is all that bad. Like I said before it extends planting seasons. It is government that stokes fears of the impending doom and you ate it up.

But please continue.

If you want to see a detailed video showing the ClimateGate tricks and fraud used by IPCC "scientists"/activists to pretend that warming is occurring and that it's because of man see the following link:

www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckton-on-climategate-at-the-2nd-international-climate-conference/

EParker:

"I wouldn't be surprised if you were a Chinese or Saudi national, and just on here to derail the U.S. economy."

I LOL'd.

But your point is taken regarding the terms "zealot" and "alarmist". I'll make a deal with you; you rightly criticize those who call me a denier (since after all, I don't deny that the earth has warmed slightly in the last 150 years), and I won't call you an alarmist. And if you'll give me a well-reasoned argument why I should accept the conjecture of scientists who are now *proven* to have conspired to hide and manipulate data, then I'll stop with the zealot thing too. Maybe then we can have an intelligent discussion about the science, its merits, or lack thereof.

Mike_R:

I'm really sorry you simply refuse to or are incapable of realizing the bias in our media. Time and Newsweek are left leaning magazines, just as US News and World Report leans right. The problem we have in our media is that it is so predominantly left leaning that most don't even know it. So if all of the media, with a few notable exceptions, espouses and supports a specific viewpoint, it's no wonder that many simply accept that as the mainstream viewpoint. I get my information from MANY sources, not just one, therefore I know FOX is right and CNN is left. This isn't hard to do.

With regard to this subject, my posts should have indicated where I get the majority of my information. It comes from multiple blogs published by the people in the field. It doesn't come from Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh; they're hacks who have vested interests in the outcome. That is why I named the scientists involved and invited other readers to find the information and reach their own conclusions. It's clear from PopSci's constant pro AGW reporting that they're blowing the "consensus" horn, even while THOUSANDS of leaked emails show the conspiracy of the core IPCC scientists.

Their lack of objectivity is an example of what I'm talking about in the media. They won't even give the emails a blog post, much less the level of coverage it deserves. Consider that googling climate-gate yesterday returned approximately 30 million hits. Tiger Woods garnered 20 million. Who's avoiding what, here? If you, as a proponent of AGW, would take the honest effort to read the emails and explain to us that nothing was wrong, I could at least respect that you've come to a different conclusion. But thus far, you've avoided the discussion entirely, as much of the media has. Just google it, I'm sure one of the 30 million links will get you to them.

Mike_R:

It's somewhat nauseating to read your pompous platitudes and assumptions about people. Thanks for telling us who we listen to and all about your liberal arts degrees; I had to get by with a degree in computer science. But you sure learned to write long, self-serving posts on the intarwebs. Nice!

Wow. I mean, really, wow. Was it something I said? I must have really dropped some chum into the water this time. Two separate posts to castigate my own as long and self-serving, including one to indicate how it's annoying to point out your educational background, while simultaneously doing just that and denigrating others. In the interest of brevity, I'll avoid a long discussion of the many other apparent pot vs. kettle statements which seem to run in a similar vein.

But I do need to address a pressing problem raised in the last post -- the allegation that I am the cause of nausea. I strongly disagree, as there is no reliable scientific evidence to prove that I am the causative agent behind this alleged nausea. I'm quite convinced that the nausea, if it in fact exists (and I have not yet conceded that point), may well be part of a natural nausea cycle. For example, it could be occurring regularly this time each year, as one feasts on weeks-old Thanksgiving leftovers that initially seem palatable, but later prove otherwise. Or, it could be that the nausea is the result of exposure to toxic fumes from sources such as poorly-ventilated space heaters, Chinese drywall, or Zhu Zhu Pets. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that all the sources of information supporting the theory of me as the origin of nausea are unreliable, as they are biased in favor of the use of Dramamine and Pepto-Bismol. Clearly they want you to take anti-nausea medication and should not be relied upon. In the meantime, there are a handful of blogs by independent researchers I greatly respect, which provide excellent proof that I am not the cause of nausea. So until you provide ironclad proof that I the sole cause of nausea, I deny the validity of this theory.

On that note, Merry Christmas and a pompous -- I mean Happy New Year!

I like how you claimed I didn't understand government, yet now you refuse to continue what you were saying. Please enlighten me, I realllllllly would like to know the error of my ways. Stupid herd followers such as myself have a hard time understanding "settled science" and what constitutes a government.

Here's what's going to happen:
Our government, in recognition of the overwhelming evidence (that you now claim is faulty), is going to restrict your rights to blow up mountains, burn the coal, and release carbon and mercury and fly ash and all sorts of other garbage. They're going to get in between you and Osama's financiers in Saudi Arabia. And if you put solar panels on your house or wind turbines on your farm, you're going to get a check or tax rebate. The majority of Americans support this.

The question is, what are you going to do about it?

What majority? There is no majority that you speak of.(I have already covered that.) So I guess that means you're not for civil rights? You're for tyranny? You're for theft? Shall I continue?

Wow. Somebody failed civics class. (Do they still have those?) Most people, as well as the leaders they have chosen (George W. Bush, John McCain, and Barack Obama) all agree that global warming is real and that we need to do something about it, mainly increase other energy options. The will of the majority and those they select becomes law, unless it directly targets a specific group of PEOPLE. Unless you're a ton of C02 (maybe you are), then civil rights and tyranny have nothing to do with it. Except if you consider all the people whose civil rights are violated daily in Saudi Arabia, where we send billions of bucks in our energy money currently.

Ed,

Gee, I didn't know Bush, McCain and Obama were scientists. That they (and Susan Sarandon, George Clooney and Michael Moore) agree on global warming means it is really happening. I'm glad they agree we must bankrupt ourselves to reverse something may not be reversable. I'm especially glad a governor of the most bankrupt state in the US flew to Copenhagen on the tax payer dime to give his rediculous two cents.

Science as an institution has been dragged through the mud a raked over the coals over doubts raised by the CRU emails. In order for the scientific community to regain any standing, it must allow an investigation of the emails and a re-analysis of the data. There is too much doubt now that the emails are out there. If you believe in AGW, and are a full believer in the scientic method then you would invite such an investigation instead of downplaying the significance of the emails.

I agree we should not be buying oil from the Saudis. But whose fault is that? The US Government for the past 30 years has let this crap to continue, when we could be 100% self sufficient (if not a seller) had our own companies been allowed to drill for oil in our own natural reserves. Instead, we rely on OPEC because "feel-good" environmentalists have gotten thier way. Also, because wacko conservatives have stood in the way of alternatives.

I don't know if I am as anti-government as Seriously, but I am all for less government and I believe term limits are the best way to sever special interests from Capitol Hill. The longer a politician stays in office, the more slimy tentacles grow between them and the all-for-me special interests.

I have to admit, I did not take the time to read all of the comments above. So if someone has already covered this point, please feel free to ignore the following statement.

I certainly believe in climate change, as does the vast majority of the scientific community. 90% or so the last I heard. I can't verify that. But what people disagree on most is what is causing it. Everyone sees that the Earth is getting warmer. This has happened in the past, many times. There was a time when the arctic was covered in tropical rainforest. This did not happen because of anthropogenic emissions. We can also track the CO2 records back just as we can track temperature, and see that they follow each other very closely. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This was recreated in the lab 60 years ago.

OK, none of the above is controversial. It's just the basic facts. Forget statistical predictions and modeling. Forget the East Anglia emails that don't really prove anything important, freedom of information aside.

We KNOW that CO2 affects climate. We KNOW that the world emits a certain percentage of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. But before someone even says it, we also know that some of the warming is non-anthropogenic. We know that volcanoes spew tons and tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. I think it was the Max Plank Institute that came out with a very convincing report that the solar cycle may be affecting the current trends. But we KNOW that we are contributing in some sense to the warming that is currently happening.

OK. Now did anyone stop to think what the world was like all of those times that it warmed up? New York City. Miami. Half of Southeast Asia. An absurd number of villages and towns in developing countries. The list goes on. All of them were completely underwater. We are currently AVERAGING -160 gigatons of ice loss per year since 1980, and -240 Gt in the last 6 years. This is based on hard data. Not future predictions. Just measurements.

So how can we NOT try and do whatever we can to slow or stop this process!? Whether the warming is 90% or 9% anthropogenic, this is the biggest ethical issue we've ever had to face. And if it's not emissions that's causing it, we need to figure out how we reverse the trend FAST. Because in the next 40 years, the number of climate refugees are going to start numbering in the hundreds of millions. Things like efficiency, REDD, and technological development are GOOD regardless of climate change. They don't cost that much. They reduce the strain on our power grid, provide havens of biodiversity, and reduce our dependance on foreign oil. And even the things that do cost something are not being implemented on a large scale yet. Let's start acting now. Personally, I am not willing to pay the collective cost of millions of lives on account of a few bucks in my pocket.

Pascal's Wager, my friends.

Bulldog, thanks for the wordy oninion.

If mankind lived by God's wishes we wouldn't have all these darn environmental problems. Jesus is king. Bless his Holy name!

Russ Tatum, firefighter
Cincinnati, OH

I have finally seen the light. I believe that we should not only support the goals set forth by this site, but also take very seriously the warnings we heard in Copenhagen this past week.

In order to demonstrate how serious I am regarding preserving the Earth and doing my fair share as I go about my life, I am going to do even better than two of the very famous leaders of the Green movement.

I commit here and now not to use more than 80% of the energy every year that Al Gore uses, and no more than 70% of the amount that environmentalist John Travolta does.

With leaders like this, I know we will, working together, eventually win this battle.

The science guy with not such good news,and usually a different degree and field than you.Today says this; The powers that be that want to make sure that we all go in their direction are much worse than fascists. My posts do not last long here as they are redacted as soon as the minder finds anything from my IP address that chats about science,as my factions information makes them extremely upset. There is no AGW,it is a complete different set of facts.
Carbon dioxide does not cause warming or glaciers to melt,nor does it create stronger weather events.
A certain faction finds it in their best interest to deplete everyones checkbooks and their eco systems components at will,as they are not from around here and can go home after they destroy our earths ability to heat its magma,and eventually our motor to spin to a stop.
The earth here will be the 18th. planet to be depleted in a series of metal cutoffs.
Just exactly what do you think the underground port at Kokomo Indiana is for,You science boys are not naive,just plain stupid.
Within 50 years,unless there is some help coming here to help the earths people,your families will not be alive here.
So a little AGW,alot of little wars and a whole lot more big business with funny sounding names at the helm extracting your net worth is perfectly okay with you science boys,and you go right along with their program,right in lock-step.
A couple of hours of conversation can give the facts,but scientists like me have our funding removed,our bodies depleted by certain methods and our kids tasked against,and constantly threatened to keep us quiet,even the three letter agencies are overran enough where we cannot get our funding(That belongs to us,by the way) returned.
When you all wake up,it will be way too late,but you certainly cannot say there was never a warning. Ciao

please stop pushing your ridiculous "Greenhouse gas,Man-made climate change.global warming nonsense. Professor jones the top climate scientist from east anglia recently resigned has stated that there is no evidence to show any warming of the globe in last 15 years.it is sickening that a so called science mag like pop sci wouldkeep on chanting the "CLIMATE_CHANGE"mantra .man couldn't change the climate if he tried.the best way to follow climate is to look out your window and observe.where i live in canada over the last 68 years, the seasons from winter to summer have been boringly consistent -where is Popular Science's version of global warming occurring?it's a global wealth transfer scam using cripling carbon taxes to do it --nothing to do with climate at all.Climate science and popsci have lost their CREDIBILITY.STOP THE BOVINE SCATOLOGY WE'RE NOT BUYING IT PERIOD.

Give me a fukking break people. you argue over the planets existence you dim wits what, did you have your heads up your asses when that arctic HURRICANE struck the eastern states or the multiple volcano irruptions or the more frequent earthquakes? are you stupid or not man enough to face reality? wether or not the earth is being natural is not the point we are feeding the fires of utter fukking destruction!!!!, so finally when you wake up that morning and you cant breathe i told you so will not cut it, so this little convention could save you and your children and your children's children so you should be fukkin happy that somebody in there right mind is actually gives a damn!!!!!! to whoever supports this endeavor bravo let your name be praised you actually want to live another day and i hope those who oppose challenge me so i can show you how wrong you really are, those who agree please respond and be heard!

Mike R i agree with 3/4 of what you say co2 is needed to support life but too much is a bad thing to all who are against the convention go suck pure co2 then come back that should change your minds

I cant believe this lie still continues! If you read wikipedia, you will see that water vapour is the main cause of co2

http://dzinerfusion.com

Well, It amuses me when people will post quotes from Orwell in response to an article about environmental regulation, but don't seem so inclined to comment in alarm on articles about monitoring citizens' telephone calls or tracking their internet habits (or perhaps, the ethics of hacking e-mail accounts, though I don't guess most of you have a problem with that in at least one particular case, right?), wasting billions on missile "defense," or developing other technologies that demonstrably will decrease freedom and help authoritarian regimes. Speaking of authoritarian regimes, most of the posters here seem to be on the same page as the Saudi representative at Copenhagen today, insisting that the entire science of human influence on climate change itself had been called into question by the notorious e-mail incident. But of course Saudi Arabia is altruistically looking out only for the best interests of the rest of the world, and not it's own obscenely concentrated oil wealth. Good company to keep, huh? I'm not holding out a lot of hope for Copenhagen, but at least some steps are being taken in the U.S. and abroad to address a problem that blind denial won't cause to go away.

http://www.cirurgia-plastica.com