I think the important thing is to maintain a balanced approach ...

Our understanding of climate is pretty rudimentary (so we could be very wrong) and in the very near future Wind, Solar and Geothermal power will likely reduce the quantity of CO₂ we produce regardless of any conservation efforts but this doesn't mean we should do nothing. In general we should be attempting to reduce our energy usage and be more efficient, reduce dependance or rogue states, and lower the quantity of polution we know is harmful.

Personally, I'm more worried that with the political push that Global Warming is getting if/when it turns out that the climate models were wrong (or that people were mislead) that it will become impossible to convince people of other risks.

He's also saying that a change of 3 degrees Celsius, on average, is nothing to worry about.  As I said before, the difference between Manhattan now and Manhattan with a mile of ice over it was about 6-9 degrees Celsius average global temperature.  It's not like you walk outside tomorrow and it's 3 degrees warmer, which would be no big deal.  It's that on average, every day is 3 degrees warmer everywhere in the world.  And it won't be evenly distributed, so some areas will get colder, while others will get hotter by a lot more than 3 degrees.  I highly doubt that "nobody will even notice."

 Where did you get 3 degrees PER DAY from? I'm sure z64dan was talking about a 3 degree increase over the next 100 years. 

That's not at all what I meant, which is easily understandable by looking at the rest of my post.

Haha... 3 degrees per day. THEN we'd be in trouble... we'd be worried about rock melting in 100 years and not just ice! You've gotta love misunderstandings!

Yeah some places will get warmer, and some places will get colder. Thats what happens every single year. And no, its not like you just walk outside and its warmer. We're talking .03 degree gain, in the annual average global temperature, every year. That means in 33 years, the whole world, on average, will be 1 degree warmer. WOW. Gonna die soon, guys! We've got 33 years to live! But even better, in 66 years (when most of you are already old/dying) it will be a whopping 2 degrees, on average, warmer, in the whole world. With some places getting colder, and some getting warmer.

I just love these temperature maps with the really warm spots over Siberia and places like that. Sure, they were 10 degrees above average that year, but the average temp was still -20 degrees, lol. Not quite warm.

Given our curnent level of understanding about the biogeochemical cycle it is impossible to quantify the level of effect the anthrosphere has on global warming. For me personaly it's effects with regards to deforestation and xenobiotics are of much more concern.

Hey guys,

I've been a bit out of touch on this thread, I have a bad habit of starting threads and then forgetting them. Some very interesting points from both sides, I'm glad that for the most part everyone has kept things civil, I really do appreciate it.

Just to re-iterate, while I may not believe in an anthropogenic source for climate change, that does not mean I don't think humans are ruining the environment =). I'm totally in favour of all things green, I just would prefer if people would stop citing climate change for everything. It seems that every new disaster is being attributed to global warming. Some people in this thread are perfect examples. Extreme weather, droughts, famines, increase sun tans! For such a complex system with such a small amount of true understanding, its disconcerting when it gets brought up as the cause of the worlds ills.

On another matter, concerning 3rd world countries being exempt from the Kyoto protocol...doesn't that tell you how big a waste the entire process is? Anyway, the kyoto protocol itself is really an entirely different debate.

I see many common trends in this debate that I've seen other places. Most of the arguments have been made before and unfortunately for the side of AGW, I still don't think there is strong enough evidence for me to be converted. The topic of focus is a good one, I think there is entirely too much focus being placed on CO2 and too little being looked for other places.

The essential fact remains. Humans are trying to predict the future. Instead of using various drugs or hypnotic trances or the entrails of chickens, we are using computer generated models. Our methods may be more correct than the previous methods, but it is still trying to predict the future.

For you AGW proponents, answer me this: Can you give me a mathematical proof for anthropogenic global warming? Can you give me a formula where we plug in human caused co2 and the result is an increase in tempurature? Because so far all I get are hums and haws, with various computer models showing the increase. The majority of these computer models don't even have open source code, so its difficult if not impossible to verify what they are supposedly calculating. I'll make you guys a deal. I'll change my mind if any of you can give me a scientifically sound formula proving global warming with all variables accounted for. All I have to do is stick in value X and I get value Y for the change in climate....sound impossible? I completely agree, I bet its impossible and that is the biggest reason I don't agree right now.

Has anyone here heard of the Drake equation on extra-terrestrial life? Here's a short description:

The Drake equation states that:

N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L

where:

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy, with which we might hope to be able to communicate;
and

R*: is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp: is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne: is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl: is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi: is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc: is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L: is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

This formula seems pretty reasonable correct? A nice neat formula, all the bits and pieces defined and we get some pretty cool numbers that almost conclusively proove that someplace out there, there are intelligent ET's. The problem with this equation is that none of those variables are definable, and therefore the formula is useless.

The same could probably be said for any formula's that proove AGW. Too many variables are not understood completely or not understood at all. Too many variables aren't taken into account and lastly too many variables are NOT currently definable. Any computer models that exist are at best compared to Nostradamus, possibilities with a varying amount of potential accuracy. These models get better as we understand more fully all the variables involved, but as each variable becomes well understood, 10 more suddenly appear and have to be dealt with, meaning that until those new variables are dealt with, the entire model is worthless.

Nobody that I've ever heard quoted believes we know everything there is to know about the climate. In fact, even most climatologists admit and agree that we know a very small bit of the larger picture and what we do know is hazy at best. THIS is why people that think the theory of AGW is a closed subject scare the utter crap out of me. It scares the crap out of me because it tells me that humans are not learning (which isn't a big surprise I guess). This is the same attitude that is prevelant throughout scientific history.

Someone already mentioned Galileo, castigated both by his peers and by the church/goverment of the time for daring to say that the sun was the center of our system and not the earth. Darwin was similarily disregarded when he first put forth the theory of evolution, so much in fact that he had to almost be forced to publish it in the first place. Hell, even he had a hard time believing it at first, as he was a very religious man. Another good one is the theory of continental drift, or how about the existance of life too small to see (aka bacteria and viruses) , or maybe you'd prefer the scientific consensus that it is absolutely impossible for light to act as a particle and a wave at the same time.

I could go on and on about these so called scientific consensus's...my point? There is no such thing...there are only theories that have yet to be disproven. We live in a world of absolutes it seems, either something is correct or it isn't, when in fact there are infinite levels in between. People need to realize that you can't KNOW anything. All knowledge is relative to the assumptions we make. The colour green is only green because we all agree that that particular colour is green. As there is no way to prove anything, all we can do is assume we are making semi accurate guesses, so people who make comments like "This is a FACT" are full of shit. There are no facts, there are only current truths. I believe that the world isn't going to end tomorrow, but I can't be sure of it. I believe that I can fly if I trip and accidently miss the ground, but until I do fall and miss the ground, I can't definitively prove it is or isn't possible (In case some of you don't know the reference, I highly recommend reading the first few books in Douglas Adams "Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" trilogy in 5 parts).

@Kytiara:

reads like some guy's post in a philosophy forum... the kind of thinking everybody needs to go through at one point or another. moving on.

here's just my thoughts, unrelated to everything i've mentioned in the past. i'm happy the discussion global warming has gained traction. apparently a critical mass has been reached and it's now on politician's agenda. i'm glad it's appearing on a video game forum and people are researching about this important topic.

better yet is the policies are gradually beginning to reflect this mentality. massive amounts of money are being spent (esp. in forms of subsidies) and it only helps to advance us into a new era.

it's funny; at the turn of the 20th century physicist thought physics is largely done, as in all the major discoveries have already been made. in the early cold war era people thought the future lies in the stars. then the biotech age came and it's all in our genes. now we have this. we live in a tremendously fascinating era! we all should be excited... and possibly spend less time playing video games?

nah, that won't sell.

The infrared absorption qualities of CO2 are measured in laboratory conditions several times, as I've already said. That alone doesn't definitely prove that the warming is human caused because there are many feedback systems, but the changes in the spectrum of the outgoing radiation show that the greenhouse effect has gotten stronger.

As for the mathematical proof, you already said that you don't accept computer models, which are the most complex mathematical models out there, so the task of providing you a mathematical proof that you would accept is impossible.

Well, actually science relies on observations as facts, so if you're saying there are no facts, that's an issue outside of the philosphy of science. For example, it is a measured fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and that the amount of CO2 has risen in the atmosphere.