"Checked up - Glacier national park was formed by an act of the US Congress in 1910."

That's what I was thinking. A couple more questions: Who are "people like Al Gore"? And how exactly does making a feature length film about this topic NOT equal a willingness to debate the topic? And, how are people who have made good under the present system and who then decide it important to try and do something about the problems we're causing, somehow more reprehensible than others who, having also made good under our system, only want to continue to plunder and waste resources? And finally, how could anyone be so fooking naive as to believe there are not enormous sums being spent to maintain the status quo? Could it possibly be that folks who are so unaware are the fish that are already in the net?

+oM

"how exactly does making a feature length film about this topic NOT equal a willingness to debate the topic?"

Making a film is the epitome of a video dictation, representing only what the film maker wants, the ultimate in control of the subject matter. Regardless of how you feel about the topic, the making of a feature length film is hardly expressive of any openness to debate.

Gore has been all over the TV, talking about his ideas and even participating frequently in gags and comedy skits. Hardly comes across as aloof and remote. Has said the wooden image he had during the campaign for President was the result of bad advice.

Al Gore has been asked repeatedly to debate the subject in public and has always refused. Do a google search and see if you can find one situation in which he debated the facts. In fact one group ran ads in several US papers asking him to debate Lord Monckton on national television and he never responded.

The problem is he knows the current data is way to incomplete to support the definative statements that he is making. Sometimes it even runs counter to his point of view. Take the hurricane season as an example.

As far as Glacier national park goes I should have stated the weather changes that took place 20,000 years ago causes the formation of the glaciers, not the park its self.

There are a lot of factors that may be impacting this situation and to rule out any of them without proper scientific evaluation is wrong.

David

I'd like to add too that my concern for the environment began in the mid 1970s. This is decades before I ever heard of Al Gore. As to "worshipping at the alter of global warming" which I think should be altar, what utter nonsense! I know many folks who are at least concerned over what may be happening, but "worshipping"? That I haven't seen.

A guy at work brings in a rag called 'Climate Change News' or something like that. It's really a laugh to read it. From the perspective of the editors of this thing, every single environmental problem-in the world-turns out to be a conspiracy, a hoax, or a bunch of stupid people (Probably worshipping at the altar). Apparently, the health of the planet is just great. There are NO PROBLEMS! Yeah!

+oM

if there is a side with a political bent it is the naysayers of global warming not the al gore disciples. Its like 20 years ago any educated person knew smoking causes cancer, but there were so called scientists and experts who poked holes in the voluminous evidence, just enough to confuse people and let people believe what they want to believe. Of course they were wrong then and are now, also interesting that they're the same political party! That's right the global warming naysayers are the same as the 'smoking isnt harmful' types. Still full of crap and militantly ignorant.

Hi all, I am not expert, only normal green finger, but for producing one barrel of so called green energy you spend 0,75 additional barrels of normal oil. Thats great, if you have your money in petrols companies. Oil producing price in deserts is about 3 USD, selling price on terminals 100 USD. What could be better..., kill the beaver save a tree for better green peace victory...., sorry for my english
Jan wbgarden
PF 2008 once more...

Here is a link that might be useful: dwarf conifers garden

Thanks for raising some common-sense questions, Picea.

Since Resin linked to the UN IPCC, I'll provide a link to a site (which I've been reading for yrs) that examines many of the IPCC's claims & actions, and won the 2007 Weblog Award for the best scientific blog.

This is a very technical site so not for the faint-hearted, other than the Unthreaded posts.

Here is a link that might be useful: Climateaudit blog

One other note on this issue, it has been reported that the temperature on Mars has increase at a similar rate as the temps one earth since 1970. Since there has been no increase in the carbon footprint by the citizens of Mars it must be part of a natural warming cycle. Given that the Earth and Mars have both warmed at the time of increased solar activity why do scientist pushing the view that global warming is entirely man made so strongly discount the sun effect? Isn't the sun what warms the planet? If radiation from the sun is increase isn't it rational to think it could impact our temperatures?

The UN is pushing for carbon taxes for developed nations that would be given to developing nations. We are talking about billions of dollars. Could this be a reason to push this point of view. The research dollars that governments are giving will also dry up if it is determined that this is a natural cycle. Political types won't be able to promise they can fix this problem if it is not man made.

I agree that there are financial motivation on both sides of this issue but those that side with Al gore tend to forget the motivations on their side are not pure. Anyone that wants to sell carbon credits is selling snake oil, not looking out for the good of the planet.

It should also be noted that those that question the view that global warming is man made are not always anti environment. Most of us just want to make sure that what we are doing is beneficial. It would be much wiser to spend billions of dollars on basic research into finding superconductors that are stable at room temperature, cost effective solar, geothermal and hydrogen technology than to spend billion on carbon credits.

David

"One other note on this issue, it has been reported that the temperature on Mars has increase at a similar rate as the temps one earth since 1970"

It hasn't. That claim is erroneous. I'll see if I can dig out the reference.

Resin

Irregardless of how you feel on this topic, I'd say it's probably a good idea for us humans to do what we can to limit our impact on our climate and the plants, animals, land, water, and air around us. I don't think it's a good idea for us to actively try and influence the climate in one way or the other, no matter how good the intentions. Like seeding of clouds to prevent the formation of super cell thunderstorms, or hurricanes, or to make it rain in certain areas(these have all been done). Or to dump iron into the ocean to try and counter the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere(this has been done and is being thought about in larger scales). The unintended consequences are likely as damaging as the perceived damage done in the first place. Especially when we don't fully understand the processes, factors, and dynamics of such incredibly huge and complex systems, like the atmosphere, climate, the ocean, etc.

I also don't know if it's accurate to say that anyone skeptical of the evidence of how much global warming is man made and how much is not man made are "full of crap and militantly ignorant" or that they are part of a political party or are a "smoking isn't harmful type".(just a side note, there is much more science behind the effects of smoking and it's a relatively much simpler and more easily studied subject than global warming) Nor is accurate to say that anyone strongly speaking out about the man made aspect of global warming are "Al Gore and the celebrity warming ilk" or necessarily aligned with people like that, or are "bow(ing) to the altar of global warming".

There certainly are people like those descriptions on both sides of this topic, but I think that most people aren't that way. I would be in favor of people laying out all of the relatively undisputed facts and observations we have and then separately laying out their conclusions, theories, hypothesis's, etc. to explain the facts. Then for people to argue these conclusions, theories, hypothesis's, etc. or any problems they see with the facts and observations that they are based upon. I believe this is indeed the way of science and logic and to be skeptical is how it works best. Without a theory or hypothesis being held up to skepticism and counter arguments is likely to produce a more flawed, inaccurate, and/or incomplete theory or hypothesis. As always knowledge really is power (my favorite cliche) and the more we learn the better our conclusions, theories, and hypothesis's become, so lets continue to learn while the debate rages.

That's just my 2¢

You folks are aware of plate tectonics, too, I hope?

The earth isn't a fixed thing...you can't expect temps to stay the same, or deserts/forests to stay put in such a dynamic system.

While many "Global Warming(tm)" activists cite the shrinking of arctic ice-sheets, few wish to engage in a discussion of the increasing antarctic ice-sheets.

Josh

Josh/greenman, I am indeed aware of plate tectonics. When I was just a wee lad, geology and paleontology were my favorite subjects. Could you please elucidate for us what this has to do with the discussion. Earth a dynamic system? Yes, I've had that thought cross my mind. Discuss the situation in Antarctica...why, I'd be delighted! Most likely, I'll need to prepare for this. Can you link me to the work done by Rush Limbaugh and other scientists discussing this matter? ;^)

+oM

+oM, here you go:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

A few more interesting reads:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

What I don't like is the idea that... "if there is no man made global warming, then there really isn't anything wrong that needs to be fixed". Humans are still making a large impact in many ways, changing the world so quickly.

In any event there is not an unlimited source of "cheap" mass resources for the world to provide affordable fuel, food, metals, plastics and synthetics forever for everybody. Things will have to change, for economic reasons, something has to give as the demands keep increasing and costs keep increasing. And growing corn is not the solution. Pretending that nothing will change does not help, and might as well not cut down all the forests and drain all the swamps and pollute all the waterways with fertilizer while we are it.

Sure Al Gore is a hypocrite, I'm sure he thinks he is doing the right thing and also enjoys the attention while he jets from city to city and is limo-ed around, in between visits to his 20 room mansions. But there are many types of hypocrites across the spectrum.

It would be funny thou to hear Limbaugh use plate tectonics as a criticsm of global warming!

warming temperatures on mars???? plate tectonics?....it really depresses me to read things like that. The overwhelming majority of the scientific communinty is profoundly concerned about climate change. (warming is actually a misnomer - it's worse than that)

The dissent really isnt credible. its just one or two guys, one of which i think is a former board member of one of the largest american petroleum companies, and a few crackpots that deny this. It really is like denying the holocaust. worse. If you make a simple bar graph of carbon as a percentage of the atmosphere and average global temps you see a direct and positive correlation. Isnt that more relevant than what you think the temps are on mars. Gimme a break.

My brother in law is an engineer and he is a border line retarded person. Do you really think your dinky wang engineering credentials are impressive? Are you so much smarter than 99.9999% of scientists out there because you can use a slide rule and a protractor?? you must have a tiny dingus to insist on your SUV so fervently. Or are you one of these pat robertson home school your kids so they can pray more types?

And the UN has a socialist agenda? Wow. you dont even know what the UN is I guess. Clearly you have like an 80 IQ. I have a degree in government and I can tell you the type of person who says something like that is a hopeless 'execute retarded people' 'go to a mega church' 'kiss your sister' 'I love rush limbaugh' type of republican. you're a gross idiot. I hope your whole fmaily gets cancer soon.

anything at all else panserbjorn? My IQ is 99 does that qualify me to be moderately intelligent or average? I love those tests. Wow. pot meets pot, one question: have you heard the question: a rolling stone gathers no moss?
Jack Nicholson's answer: 'it's sort of like you shouldn't wash your dirty underwear in public!'

Peace homey,

Dax

I'm usually inclined to listen to the climate experts on this subject, seeing as they spend their entire lives studying it. I once knew thin man at worked at walmart, and he KNEW he KNEW that the scientists had simply overlooked about the climate that was so glaringly obvious to him he said, because he knew so much about the matter(Google) that he didnt NEED a phd in the subject at hand to knowledgeably dispel scientific consensus. Not when you have Google. Nope,

In order to put public policy actions in place to combat global warming which could have negative effects on economic progress, the following must be true.

1. global warming is occurring (probably true).
This is not all that unexpected since we may still be coming out of the little ice age which we know occurred at least from 1600-1850. Also warming is much smaller when measuring from satellite rather than from ground based measuring devices that are affected by urban heat islands.

2. the majority of the warming is due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions and not natural (questionable).
Correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 is problematic. Ice core data appears to show that CO2 increases follow or lag higher temperatures and is therefore an effect and not a cause. Percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is small (0.03 percent). ManÂs contribution to CO2 is a small percentage of CO2 (5%). CO2 contribution to global warming is small (4%). Much of the increase in CO2 due to man entered carbon sinks at is not still in the atmosphere (50%).

3. unnatural levels of global warming will occur during the next century (questionable)
IPCC predictions have ranged from a 1.5C to 5.8C increase by 2100 over the last ten years (needless to say the best answer may be they donÂt know)
Computer models so far have done a poor job at predicting recent and past results. There is still a poor understanding of the global carbon cycle which makes any climate change due to CO2 unpredictable

4. The consequences of this warming will be disastrous (unlikely)
Typically only negative aspects of warming is noted, positive consequences should be noted as well
*Nighttime lows may be higher in temperate regions extending farming regions north
*Increased CO2 encourages plant growth
*Some desert regions (the Sahara in particular) may see increased rainfall based on historical data
If changes to the climate take place it will be over long periods of time allowing for the adaptation and migration

5. we have enough knowledge to put in place world-wide policy action that can reverse the warming (unlikely)
Any solution must be effective and be better than alternative actions (or inaction) and not produce unacceptable new problems
The thought of political leaders from around the world sitting around a conference table debating the best policy to put in place in order to keep 2100 global temperatures at a +1.5C increase instead of +2.5C is laughable

Fossil fuels are the life blood of the human economic engine that has improved the life of nearly every person on the planet. The level of proof for those wishing to change or effect the way we live is very high. The proof so far is quite lacking in my opinion. In addition, the proposed methods to combat this theoretical problem have been either impossible to implement or likely ineffective.

Hi panserbjor,

Pleases read the post by kman04. He or she nailed it. Also do yourself a favor and and do a google search for information and scientist who don't think global warming is man made. There are many from highly respected institutions. You will find out that that 99.99 percent it dramatically inflated.

You will also find that since it is goes against the current PC view, those that have a different view are reluctant to say so because of the ridicule they face from the hollywood, media and Gore types.

As far as your bar graft reference with carbon and temps goes it is the exact reason why the information on Mars it so important if it is correct. You could likely make a bar graft comparing the Muslim population increase in Europe with temperature increase there over the last 20 years and get a high corelation. Would that mean muslim are causing the warming in Europe?

Mars and Earth are both impacted by the solar cycle while only earth is subject the impact of increase carbon through human activity. If both are having temperature increases why would you then discount the impact of the sun? Just because you have a high or low IQ does not make you right or wrong but failing to look at all the variables that impact a complex system to determine which one is impacting it is just stupid.

At one point in time all the high IQ types knew that earth was flat and laughed at those that thought the earth was round. What group are you in?

"I have a degree in government and I can tell you the type of person who says something like that is a hopeless 'execute retarded people' 'go to a mega church' 'kiss your sister' 'I love rush limbaugh' type of republican. you're a gross idiot. I hope your whole fmaily (sic) gets cancer soon."

...and the Crazy Left(tm) speaks! I hope this wasn't directed at me.
Your hostility and rudeness speak for themselves.
Yet, in the hopes of civility, I'll respond:

1) I don't hold with Church;

2) I don't listen to Limbaugh....at all! Nor Hannity, nor O'Reilly for that matter...

3) Do you just want my whole family to get cancer, or do you want them to die of cancer, too?
(By the way, you were so angry that you misspelled "family").
______________________________________

Look up Harm de Blij

Josh

Hey guys & gals, since I started this thread I would like the right to put it to bed.

It long ago ceased to be a informative and positive thread.

Lets move on. I kind of like the thread Conifers purchased for 2008. What have you ordered and what are you plans for 2008.

Start a new thread.

Dave

Yeah, I agree, the wishing of disease on another's family pretty much put it over the top.

Josh

"And the UN has a socialist agenda? Wow. you dont even know what the UN is I guess. Clearly you have like an 80 IQ. I have a degree in government and I can tell you the type of person who says something like that is a hopeless 'execute retarded people' 'go to a mega church' 'kiss your sister' 'I love rush limbaugh' type of republican. you're a gross idiot. I hope your whole fmaily gets cancer soon."

Ding, ding! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

Personal attacks are the only weapon of choice when the holster of reason is empty.

The most telling part of the quote is "I have a degree in government..." More government is exactly what is needed.

I obviously spend too much of my money on my family and their needs when I should be paying more in taxes to fatten the wallet of some thuggish third world autocrat.

Got a 111 IQ! So now who wants to battle? ;)

(moving on) Oh Yes. ring ring "yes hello mensa, sure I'd like to join mensa for small minds when I KILL MY FAMILY WITH TELEPATHIC CANCER!" lol I know, that's not nice, but I am calling on the good lord Satan and his family of Mars Muslums first: "(ring ring) hello, could you please forward this to my psychiatrist?" He's expecting me soon...

(ring ring) "yes again, may I have a mocha with extra whipped cream and a double shot, no make that a triple shot of gunpowder."

(ring ring) "Hi Dax it's your psychiatrist speaking, I'd like you to come in and save the world." Yes sir!

Dax

Wow. "(ring ring) "Hi Dax it's your psychiatrist speaking, I'd like you to come in and save the world." Yes sir!"

Dax

Thanks Dax (I think). ;^)

At this late juncture, out of respect for the forum, I'm leaving this thread, not in concession to global warming naysayers-I think the fact that the planet has warmed HAS been established. Rather, to concede that we're not accomplishing anything here. Personally, I'd like nothing better than for certain predictions for some of the regions I hold most dear to be wrong. But it's not plate tectonics, it's not "Hollywood". Deserts have been expanding world-wide for decades now. We, even New Guinians, have got some problems to face. Starting out in a reflexive denial posture is not being open-minded.

+oM

I think no matter how messed up the plantet gets from humans or other wise; life will find away. And just because it's human nature to dislike change doesn't mean change is a bad thing. You will have to distroy all of the fundimentals for life before it gives up not just petty temperature change.

(Where does the current rapid melting away of the Arctic ice cap etc. fit into your idea of global warming being "wrong"?)

they have been melting since the last ice age, just because we haven't seen them stay constant over our breif awarness of them doesn't mean it's bad. there was a time on earth before there was water and life still eventualy sprung up. To say that, because it's not as cold as used to be durring the last ice age we might be on the brink of extinction is absurd.

No I was just moving on because as you said it was going no-where and it was beastly and life sucks and you're such a champion you cannot distinguish pure comedy from reality.

Let me quote you:

"+om"

There ya go.

Later genius,

Dax

I had no idea there were so many varied opinions on this subject out there. Much has been said on this topic with nothing being resolved. Probably holds true for many other topics as our way of living has become very complex. The simple laid back life that we used to enjoy is gone.

Probably the time of year with a dose of cabin fever has something to do with it also. I am ready for Spring and gardening talk.

Dave

Dave,
I think there's little argument that the globe is warming. It certainly is. It must, considering we've emerged from a small ice age cycle and are at the peak of the warm (interglacial) period. Now, however, we're going to descend into the cold trough of our ice age cycle - which will "peak" in another 10,000 - 15,000 years or so.

The question is this: is "Global Warming(tm)" *caused* by human activity. Alarmists say 'yes.'

Many of us believe it is a complex issue, one which must necessarily take into account the primary causes of ice age fluctuation: volcanic activity and solar radiation. The Siberian Traps, the deep ocean vents, as well as our position in the solar system (in accord with the energetic output of the sun) heavily influence our global temperatures and weather-cycles.

We ought to steward and protect our planet, indeed, but not if we must lie and scare-monger people into action. Such lies are more akin to religious oppression than true science.

Thank you,

Josh

Global warming or not, as a native of Southern California, we have been through one of the worse droughts in decades. Only now are we getting winter rains. But the effects of the drought are present in the wildfires and death of many trees and shrubs stressed from the lack of water and the air pollution from the Los Angeles basin. Local ponderosa pine, piñon pine have been stressed by the drought and are susceptible to pine beetles. A look at many of fire ravaged areas near Lake Arrowhead, show that the wildfires were helped along by the many dead snags. All dead from pine beetle attack. Even higher elevation conifers like fir, jeffrey pine and sugar pine show effects of pollution with needle drop and overall weakness. Some areas of the local mountains look pretty sad.

It seems to me that to say human-caused emissions do not contribute to global warming by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is a most unconservative position, because it implies that actions have no consequences. It seems reckless to me to take such a position.
Estimating magnitude is daunting because of the multiple factors involved, and it is to be expected that even honest attempts to get at the details are going to be arguable on methodological and interpretive grounds.
The problem requires more use of the brain and less of the glands.

3 words to heed here, as in all political battlegrounds -"follow the money".....I wish this were a scientific argument but it's not. The guy who invented the internet made it political and won't let the fact be debated openly by experts. Those of us who live here with Al know what he's about - always has been...this dude has quite a carbon footprint to maintain and good help ain't cheap!
The only thing the average guy (or gal) can do is clean up our own yards (which is the only part of the planet we have any influence on) and wait. Maybe I should start in MidTN's direction and go with the tropicals instead of getting firs grafted onto firma in the hope that they might survive our summers...
Or maybe I should dump all of my obtusas in fear of a coming ice age...
Awww- I guess I'll just keep planting (thus offsetting my personal co2 emissions)and try that recycling thing again - that's good for everybody.
And for anyone who has any cancer anywhere, I hope it gets better - really. And my prayers are very sincere.

Back to lurkerdom-

Zack

You can debate all you want, back and forth, whether global warming is man made or not.

What cannot be debated is whether the Kyoto Protocol is a good treaty for America.

On July 25, 1997, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95Â0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[66][67] which effectively denied ratification of Kyoto.

Think about that.

The treaty is so anti-American that not even one Democrat Senator was willing to vote for it. Not one.

I would bet not one Democrat or Republican could understand it in the context it is written. Go Google it.

The treaty was formulated around the United Nations frame work of contributing countries.

United Nations: A worthless corrupt organization dedicated to nothing. Guess who continues to prop them up.

Dave

The anti-UN sentiment surprises me. They are committed to something I guess, just basic principles of international law that predate the formation of that body....certainly not socialist.

It's not just alarmists that say climate change is connected with human activity its just a widely accepted fact. Its really a little crazy to suggest otherwise.

I have to take issue with this statement because it's so wreckless and wrong: "The consequences of this warming will be disastrous (unlikely) Typically only negative aspects of warming is noted, positive consequences should be noted as well
*Nighttime lows may be higher in temperate regions extending farming regions north
*Increased CO2 encourages plant growth
*Some desert regions (the Sahara in particular) may see increased rainfall based on historical data
If changes to the climate take place it will be over long periods of time allowing for the adaptation and migration"

YIKES! That's right out a laundry mat crackpot religous periodical. Was Hurricane Katrina a disaster? Imagine what it would have been like if sea levels were 3 or 4 feet higher and it was a category 5 instead of a 4. That's only a matter of time irrespective of whether you think climate change is man made or not (and not that much time, just several decades at most). It can;t be stopped no matter what now.

How long will it take a few million people to "migrate"? Where will they go? What jobs will they work? What fresh water will they drink. This summer a huge american city, atlanta, illustrated how ill prepared it is for increased population and increased demands on fresh water supply. THats one of the 10 largest cities in the wealthiest country in the world! This will happen everywhere.

When someone's house is under water they will take little comfort in the fact that arid areas are getting more rain. More rain in those areas does not amount to a "netting out" of the negative aspects of climate change. They are almost meaningless. It would take more than a little extra rain to make that area arable. And even if it is who cares? it's nothing relative to the negatives....

If you're 30 to 40 years old you'll see the disaster in your lifetime. If you're older it's your legacy. Congratulations. Put your head in the sand if it makes you feel better and play the skeptic. Call people alamists if you dont want to believe what they say. But the papers cited above are the consensus of the most educated people in this area. They are a little out of the league of the average (or above average) garden-weber.

I hope you're judged for your willful, proud blindness. It takes a special kind of person to curse their children this way.

Amen.

Global warming or not, as a native of Southern California, we have been through one of the worse droughts in decades. Only now are we getting winter rains. But the effects of the drought are present in the wildfires and death of many trees and shrubs stressed from the lack of water and the air pollution from the Los Angeles basin. Local ponderosa pine, piñon pine have been stressed by the drought and are susceptible to pine beetles. A look at many of fire ravaged areas near Lake Arrowhead, show that the wildfires were helped along by the many dead snags. All dead from pine beetle attack. Even higher elevation conifers like fir, jeffrey pine and sugar pine show effects of pollution with needle drop and overall weakness. Some areas of the local mountains look pretty sad.

I am very sorry to hear this. As a CA Southerner, do you have detailled information about the following 2007 fires and their impacts on the different Cupressus species?
February 2007: Coal Canyon Fire, Orange County.
July 2007: Zaca Peak Fire, Santa Barbara County.
Fall 2007: Tecate Peak Fire, San Diego County.

Thanks!

The treaty is so anti-American...

Could you care to explain why?

It looks to me that USA has the most to lose: Florida drowned, SW USA transformed into a desert...

On the other hand, Russia signed the treaty, when they have much to gain on the long run by not doing it.

In any case, I am sure that all oil that can be extracted will be and that most of it will be burned. Then will come coal (and is already coming in China)...

Just read that a fighter-jet is using 1 to 3.5 liters of oil per second. Without post-combustion...

Not to speak about the water shortages in some regions already.

Coal has been and still is the #1 energy source for China. Coal is used for everything from cooking to heating to electricity production and steel production. In fact most people in China burn coal-clay bricks for heating(because they burn slower than pure coal and it helps stretch the coal supply), which burn incredibly dirty when compared to pure coal. I never went a day in China without blowing my nose and having it black from all the airborne soot nor flying anywhere within China where the ground wasn't obscured to some degree by a pollution haze. The trees in most all of Eastern China have a fine coating of particulate pollution and soot covering them with the exception of when it's raining. China undoubtedly has the worst pollution problems in the world(of virtually all kinds) and already produces more carbon dioxide, methane and other pollution than anyone else in the world. Not to mention the poor farming practices which have lead to increased desertification causing more common and larger dust storms which along with particulate pollution is already contributing noticeably to pollution in the Western USA and Canada.

It is largely acknowledged that the Kyoto protocol by not enforcing any meaningful pollution controls on China or India(another rapidly growing polluter) while imposing the toughest controls on the world's largest developed country(the USA) would give an economic advantage to China and India. A few economist have tried to argue that the net long term effects wouldn't be as detrimental to the USA, but few have said the immediate effects wouldn't be negative.

Also, SW USA is already a desert. Certainly the mountainous terrain allows for many different micro-climates which aren't necessarily desert, but overall it is mostly all desert.

I'm not trying to claim one side or the other is correct on this debate, but I do think there are a lot more than 2 sides to this argument which some people heavily invested(figuratively and literally) in one of the 2 most publicized points of view try to lump into 1 side or the other. Emotion, politics, and economics have so thoroughly entwined themselves into this debate that it has almost become futile to discuss the "facts" and data and reasonable or credible hypothesis to explain these "facts" and data. I put "facts" in parenthesis because many of the purposed "facts" presented in this thread are either completely unsupported, hyperbole, or very much disputed.

Check on page 96 of Arrowhead Alpines catalog if you have it or it's on line version. There is a very good graft showing temperatures over time and some statements about it. David

averbisadverbera,

I will answer you since you seem to have singled me outÂ

If the UN stuck to international law we would all be much better off. The UN has been plagued with corruption just has every quasi-governmental or government agency has. Surely you can see that. Socialism has little to do with it.
You wrote "It's not just alarmists that say climate change is connected with human activity its just a widely accepted fact. Its really a little crazy to suggest otherwise."
It is not widely accepted fact. If it were, there would not be the heated discussions. You saying it is so does not make it fact. Also Âits should be ÂitÂs on both accounts. Sheesh!
You wrote  "YIKES! That's right out a laundry mat crackpot religous periodical."
The global warming debate does not revolve around religion unless you count the high priest Al Gore and his minion of global warming worshipers who follow his hypocritical teachings on faith and not facts. I also take offense to you implying that I use a laundry mat. By the way Âreligous should be Âreligious I think you meant to type Âout of a laundry as well.
You wrote... "Was Hurricane Katrina a disaster? Imagine what it would have been like if sea levels were 3 or 4 feet higher and it was a category 5 instead of a 4. That's only a matter of time irrespective of whether you think climate change is man made or not (and not that much time, just several decades at most). It can;t be stopped no matter what now."
Yes, hurricane Katrina was a disaster. AndÂ. Does that have something to do with global warming? If global warming canÂt be stopped and it is just decades away then you better buy some high ground in the Rockies, build a well stocked bunker with Uzis and buy gold. You are wasting time on these forums with Âidiots like me.
Much of the rest of your comments are little more than anecdotal weather stories, what ifs, etc. However, I do have to comment on your statement "If you're 30 to 40 years old you'll see the disaster in your lifetime. If you're older it's your legacy. Congratulations. Put your head in the sand if it makes you feel better and play the skeptic. Call people alamists if you dont want to believe what they say. But the papers cited above are the consensus of the most educated people in this area. They are a little out of the league of the average (or above average) garden-weber."
Well, I am 37 so I guess I will see this "disaster". Hopefully, all of the super intelligent people at the UN will be able to save us poor average (or below average I assume as well) people who come to read these GardenWeb posts.
Your last comment is pure elitist global warming believer rhetoricÂ
"I hope you're judged for your willful, proud blindness. It takes a special kind of person to curse their children this way."
I truly do take offense that you say I curse my children. I have a beautiful 22 month old son that I love very much. Good day to you!

>>>>>>The anti-UN sentiment surprises me. They are committed to something I guess, just basic principles of international law that predate the formation of that body....certainly not socialist. Oh my. Where to begin? Well, how about the UN Bill of Rights? It's not like ours with a simple structure of rights to protect freedom, such as free speech, assembly, petition, to be free from unreasonable searches, etc.

No. The U.N. Bill of Rights goes beyond that and speaks of "rights" to "adequate" housing, a wage of "favourable remuneration", rest and leisure, medical care, social services, employment security, sick pay, disability pay, old age security pay, holiday pay, and widowÂs pay.

"Rights" that have to be paid for by others. Socialism.

Q.E.D.

There are 192 Member States that make up the UN, only a few of which are Western democracys. This is the organization that put Cuba, Libya and Sudan on its' Human Rights Commission. It is amazing to me that anyone expects much from such a body.

>>>>>>>The Kyoto treaty is so anti-American...Could you care to explain why? Rather self explanatory that if EVERY Democrat Senator and EVERY Republican Senator agree that a treaty should not be ratified, there just might be some "wee little" problems with the treaty.

I really prefer to talk about trees....

AS far as this goes: Oh my. Where to begin? Well, how about the UN Bill of Rights? It's not like ours with a simple structure of rights to protect freedom, such as free speech, assembly, petition, to be free from unreasonable searches, etc. No. The U.N. Bill of Rights goes beyond that and speaks of "rights" to "adequate" housing, a wage of "favourable remuneration", rest and leisure, medical care, social services, employment security, sick pay, disability pay, old age security pay, holiday pay, and widowÂs pay. "Rights" that have to be paid for by others. Socialism."

I assume you're talking about the declaration on human rights? It's really just an aspirational statement about rights the governments should provide citizens. It's not really law, certainly not enforced and certainly not paid for by the international community through the UN. So no, you doorknob, that does not make it a socialist organization. Nothing is paid for by others. If the United States doesnt want to contribute resources to the UN it shouldnt. It cant be made to, so presumably it does it when it feels it is in its interest.

And as for Midtn, Im glad you're my little spellchecker. Now Im convinced you're smarter than I am. But like I said there is consensus in the scientific community about this. But consensus does not mean it's unanimous. If you want to pick and choose the very small minority of scientists who are so fervently skeptical, well, that begs the question "Why"? and the answer is it's what you want to believe. Which is to say you are willfully blind to the problem. Which is to say you are screwing over your 22 month old becuase you can't be intellectually honest with yourself. Which is to say youre not a very good parent. Even if you love the little guy very very very much. Doorknob! it's ok, most people arent intellectually honest or consistent or even rational. Thats what makes us elites so much better. A life permeated by reason, not an insatiable appetite for everything.

averbisadverbera,

You should stop. You are making yourself look like a fool.

Your ability to insult is impressive. You call me a poor parent. Why? Because I do not think that global warming is man-made and needs immediate action by some world-wide unelected bureaucracy. I guess people will put something on a forum they would never say to someone's face. Here is a little irony for you. When I was in high school in the late 80s I had to do a presentation for class. Guess what I picked. Man-made global warming (I was a believer at the time). I suspect you are probably a 20 year old college student who has very little life experience, much less children of their own. I think at this point that we should just agree to disagree. Good luck to you.

Jeff

This debate is way out of hand, I suggest you all now take your insults to one another, and political rantings elsewhere, this is supposed to be a CONIFER FORUM !!

Whatever, now Im wondering why Im being accused of being a 20 yr old college student. I wish. Must have been me calling you a "doorknob". You're a little off the mark, but I am still younger than you.

Anyway, please forgive me I didnt know you've done HIGH SCHOOL PRESENTATIONS on this very subject! Holy Crap! That changes everything! You must be right. I apoligize I didnt realize I was in such learned and distinguished company.

Oh well. It doesnt matter what either one of us thinks. Im tired of this anyway......

averbisadverbera,

Jeez! You are so thick! My point was that the global warming debate has been around since the 80s. We're still here and alive. Florida is not underwater. The point was that like you now at the time I had no idea what I was talking about! Bluespruce you are correct! I appolize to the entire forum for getting caught up in this. I should know better. averbiadverbera, please email me directly if you want to debate further.

What's left to debate?