GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

[Mx.Silver]

I know PGC has withdrawn, but I feel I should answer his points here if only the benefit of anyone else reading it.

While the melting of Antarctica will indeed have an impact on ocean levels, it hasn't been proven whether or not the continent has major melting occurring. I believe there's some data that the exact opposite is happening, and that the ice cover in the region is increasing. Along those lines, if all the ice of the polar ice cap were to melt, it would not raise the ocean levels one bit. Why might you ask? Well, the ice up there is not an anchored land mass, it's just a giant hunk of floating ice. And exactly like an ice cube, it displaces the amount of water relative to it's size.

What have ocean levels got to do with this? We aren't currently observing rising ocean levels, no one has said we are. Where you got that from I don't know. For the record though, while the melting of the Arctic icecpa wouldn't effect sea levels the melting of Antarctica would, as that is an anchored landmass. Greenland is similar. All of them would however have an impact on ocean currents regardless.

As to whether the icecaps are melting the answer is a quite definite yes. There is no data that they're increasing or anything of the kind. Both the arctic and antarctic ice sheets have been observed shrinking and breaking apart over the last few years. The ice covering Greenland is also melting at increasing rate. There is simply no disputing that, you can see it with your own eyes.

How can you say that the cyclical nature of the temperature of the earth is soley due/started to human interaction. As I recall, the last ice age was due to environmental factors (granted that factor was a large meteor hitting the planet but still...)

I have said that environmental factors were responsible for triggering the cyclical changes not once but twice already. The crucial difference this time is that no enviromental factors that could cause the current change in climate we are experiencing. There simply hasn't been any enviromental factors (e.g. Volcanic activity, solar forcing) that can explain why the climate is currently undergoing such change. Human activity is the only observable influence that could trigger such a change so it logically follows that human activity is probably the root cause.

Can we affect what the current temperature is yet, but I think that it's more environmental factors that affect the cycles (now I don't currently have anything to back that up, that's just my thoughts).

Unsupported opinion has no place in a scientific discussion (which is what this is). If you can't back it up then we have no reason to give it any consideration.

Ok, global cooling is not "fringe science", and is actually a widely accepted theory, just as much so as global warming in many scientific circles. So please don't tell me that it's just a bunch of crackpots that have thought the idea up.

Queenfange has already dealt with this. Global cooling has never, at any point, had significant scientific backing. It has never been even remotely comparible to Global Warming which, all enviromental scientists agree is happening (the only area of debate being to what extent it is the result of human action).

Again, I reiterate that it's not the scientists that have agendas, that lies more with the politicians and the special interest groups than anything else.

But all climate scientists aggree that we are currently experience a period of global warming and the vast majority of the scientific community is arguing that this is a result of human actions. This is the reason why so many politicians hold this same view. The fact that alarmist groups make exagerrated claims about the dangers of climate change does not change this.

I personally don't think you can say either way whether it is or not. Much of the evidence they've found out for either warming or cooling is anecdotal,

I'm sorry but this is just plain wrong. There is no other way to put. There is undeniably hard evidence that our planet is undergoing a period of warming. If there wasn't then there wouldn't be such a united scientific front on the matter. Science is all about evidence, no hypothesis without it can ever expect to get far in scientific circles without it (as seen in the case of global cooling, which is thoroughly discredited and never possessed any significant scientific following to begin with).

and many models have been planned out and run through with many different factors involved.

And all the ones based on up to date information are in agreement that climate change is taking place.

Again, it comes back to the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature. There will be warmer periods, and colder periods.

See higher up this post.

The thing I have issues with is that there are a select few, who publish stuff with the completely worst case scenarios.

Here we are in agreement. Sensationalism and alarmist literature is never helpful. However, note that just because their claims are exagerated does not mean that human-caused climate change isn't happening. As far as the actual evidence is concerned it very probably is.

Ok, first, if you're going to bash the guy, at least read his stuff and see what you think, I can't stand people who are willing to put something down when the guy has clearly done his research on the subject, especially when he has facts to back up everything he says (out of the 260 pages of the book, only 160 or so is the actual book, the rest of it is all the material citations from his research and notes).

I'm not bashing him. I'm just saying that he's an ecomonist and that his views are not supported by the scientific community. I'm not saying he's definitely wrong but given that his economic claims will be based on his own non-expert opinion of the science behind you should be very careful (and exercise a lot of scepticism) in taking his word about the effects of climate change over that of actual scientists.

One of the most telling things in the book is this. He asked a panel of top world economists to make a global priority list of pressing issues we have globally. He then did the same thing with a wide range of UN ambassadors, and the two lists were almost identical. They categorized the list items from very good opportunities to do much good to very poor. On both lists, climate was at the very bottom.

Economists and diplomats are not scientists. You can't expect them to know all the relevent factors because in their own fields of expertise they are not going to need to know them.

Yet, the Chancellor of Germany, along with many other heads of state keep preaching that Kyoto is the best answer, when this is just not true.

I don't think they're preaching that Kyoto is the best answer (if anything the general consensus is that it's not enough). Nonetheless again, as they're politicians they will be making these claims on the advice of the scientists they have consulted. And since the general scientific consensus is that muan-caused global warming is really happening I'm really curious as to where your sources are for how it's 'simply not true'.

And you're telling me that the powers at be do know this stuff, and are listening to it? That's a bunch of hooey and you know it.

If they weren't listening to the scientific opinion they wouldn't be treating this as an issue at all.

Example: The data states that for every dollar spent on Kyoto, you get about 30 cents worth of good out of it.

How do you reach that conclusion? How are you defining 'good'? This is a soundbite and it really needs a lot more clarification.

Even if it were to work perfectly, that plan would only delay the affects about 5 years (the world currently spends over a trillion dollars on Kyoto each year).

Again this is based on Lomborg's own knowledge of climate science, a field which he is not an expert in. He's an economist.

Now, if we invest $27 into AIDS prevention, it will save over 28 million lives,
or by investing $12 billion into curing malnutrition, it would cut the deaths due to such by over half. Lomborg's whole point is not leaving the climate issue unchecked, it is that by spending that money more wisely, we can help the world with it's problems, and climate at the very same time, much faster, and more economically that what is being done now.

How is this helping the climate? While both are comendable, neither has any impact on the levels of greenhouse gasses or polution in general. Again, bear in mind that we haven't stopped funding AIDs research

In the future, please don't dismiss someone who's actually gone out and done his homework on this issue.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm being sceptical about it. You seem to be taking him as gospel despite the fact that, once again, his view does not have the support of the scientific community all of whom have also 'done their homework' on this issue. This is probably quite closely related to the fact that he's an economist and not a scientist and isn't going to have the same level of knowledge on the subject (and won't be keeping as up to date with it) as a climate scientist would.