So the science that says the earth is getting warmer is the correct science? Is that what I'm to extract?
This doesn't really blow up the AGW hypothesis. It looks like all the research says is that cosmic rays can cause cloud formation and Solomon doesn't even explain that well. It's a notable contribution but by no means a definitive refutation of anthropogenic warming. Not even close.
The sun heats the earth? Holy **** monkeys! The only problem is that we cant tax people because the sun is hot, so thats not a good enough answer. My farts and exhaling of carbon dioxide a much better explanation.
Wake me when: a) CO2 is no longer a heat-trapping gas and, b) the definitive argument about AGW is announced somewhere other than the Opinion section in FinancialPost.com.
In the 70's the scientists were claiming we were about to enter a new ice age. Can man really cause us to go from an ice age to global warming in such a short time??
BI, as usual, is being predictably obtuse. I have no idea if the article is accurate or not. But, the vast majority of folks that question AGW do not question the science of whether or not CO2 is a heat trapping gas but rather question the affect it really has on climate. This study suggests that the CO2 released into the atmosphere by man has played a very, very minor role in temperature fluctuation. Again, I don't know if it is sound science or not, but if true, it would certainly be a good thing for our planet because we won't be cutting emissions worldwide anytime soon.
From Paso's favorite site: Global warming is primarily a problem of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This carbon overload is caused mainly when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas or cut down and burn forests. There are many heat-trapping gases (from methane to water vapor), but CO2 puts us at the greatest risk of irreversible changes if it continues to accumulate unabated in the atmosphere. There are two key reasons why. CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue. CO2, more than any other cf driver, has contributed the most to climate change between 1750 and 2005. CO2 sticks around. CO2 remains in the atmosphere longer than the other major heat-trapping gases emitted as a result of human activities.
Are we all agreed then that this one article has conclusively and immutably settled a complex global climate science question?
I am glad to see that the debate is finally over. It ended just about the way I thought it would. /End thread.
I don't know, ag. I've been doin' my part by rollin' down the windows in my SUV and running the air conditioning on full blast.
I am glad to see that the debate is finally over. It has ended about the way I thought it would. /End thread.
Was the argument about AGW ever that man is the dominant cause of climate change? It kinda feels like this opinion piece is moving the goal posts. To me, the question is not about the dominant cause, but about whether we have a significant impact. __________________________________________
BI is just being obtuse for the sake of being so. He knows damn well nobody was ever questioning whether or not the Earth was getting warmer, or if the climate was changing. That argument was never made. What people were arguing was whether or not man and the by product of breathing was the cause. We don't really need to rehash the absurdity of this failed hypothesis.
I think we should find a way to keep the earth and solar system from orbiting the center of the galaxy. I think that may help to make the weather stay the same year round, hell, millennia round. Look, we should always try to find better ways of doing things, more efficient ways of doing things, that shouldnt ever be questioned. However, fear mongering should not be tolerated, from the war on terror to death by carbon dioxide.
Interesting study, but what a joke this editorial is. Just read the bottom about the author: "Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud." And then there is this conspiracy theory sounding paragraph: "Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds." Seriously. This guy is so biased I don't believe anything he is writing. Post a link to something more credible and I will read it.
