Are there any environmentalists out there who want to stick up for the hockey stick? Or maybe you have something to say about the Bush administration's global warming policy? I'd really like to hear from you. Anybody out there?

Is this scare tactics or is this real?

"but I'm still not 100% sold on the hockey stick."

As you should be. The hockey stick has been undergoing some scrutiny as of late and appears to be on the verge of collapse. On the economic front it gets even sillier. Even the most benign scenario from the IPCC appears to be a fantasy.

Re: yawning, in canids (dogs, wolves) it is a social signal designed to lower the intensity of the situation. Dogs will yawn and look down or to the side to defuse conflict. They try it with us too, when we insist on making eye contact or speak with a lot of energy etc., but we're usually not clued in and think they're tired or bored ....

Speaking as a Canadian environmentalist, I will always defend the hockey stick! Trees are a renewable resource, and we've got lots. If a few get made into sticks for the great game of hockey, why, they should honoured to give their lives in so noble a cause.

Don't have much in particular to say about Bush's global warming policy (unless W has a dimmer switch for the sun), but thanks for letting me get that off my chest... :-)

Thanks wiseguy!

The problem here is that a real issue exists, but it is dominated by extreamists on both sides.

Man made global warming exists, it would be absurd to think otherwise. We know that the C02 in the atmaosphere has been increased, and that will obviously tend to push the tempeture up.

Is it much? I seriously doubt anybody knows for ceratin. But we are in an overall cool period, so increasing tempetures may cause problems and changes, but end-of-the-world scenerios are absurd. And the "start an ice-age" BS is just that, it's came from the name "little ice age" given to the 15th-16th century cool spell in Europe (which in my history book wasn't exactly a disaster).

The solar issue is a red herring. The only study that tended to show an increase showed such a minor increase that it would not explain more than a fraction of a degree. And for thoses who think it's obvious that solar variation is more important than greenhouse effect, Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite recieving about 1/4th the solar ratiation intensity.

What is the cost of reducing emmesions? For some reason, I am very sceptical about the numbers I see published. Too many actions will be benificial. More effieicnt cars, air-conditions certainly will reduce expediture on fosile fuels, and instead spend on developement and capital goods, sounds like a plus for the economy.

Taking reasonable steps now seams like a quite good idea, and I suspect many would agree. But instead we must have this fight between the "The World's Ending" and the "Hey, it's just a sunny day" crowds.

"A new virus has been engineered in the lab to fight against cocaine addiction. This new method of intervention appears to be much more effective than the current protein delivery methods which struggle to escape the body's self-defense mechanism."

I can see the state administering it now to all the "deviants."

DaVek,

"Man made global warming exists, it would be absurd to think otherwise. We know that the C02 in the atmaosphere has been increased, and that will obviously tend to push the tempeture up."

Then demonstrate that it exists. To be frank, your statement is laughable. The atmospheric processes you're talking about here are far more COMPLEX than you realized, and merely pumping some extra CO2 into the atmosphere is no guarantee of increased warming trends.

"But we are in an overall cool period, so increasing tempetures may cause problems and changes, but end-of-the-world scenerios are absurd."

Right now we're in a warming trend, has been since the late 19th century (which a cooling trend that ran from about 1920-1945 - if of CO2 were related to the warming trend in some sort of linear fashion, its hard to explain that drop).

"...given to the 15th-16th century..."

The "little ice ages" run from about 1150 to 1460 and about 1560 to 1850.

"The only study that tended to show an increase showed such a minor increase that it would not explain more than a fraction of a degree."

Actually, numerous studies have been able to explain recent increases exclusively on increased solar activity.

"And for thoses who think it's obvious that solar variation is more important than greenhouse effect, Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite recieving about 1/4th the solar ratiation intensity."

So? We're talking about a 1 degree increase here over the 20th century, which is easily explainable by increased solar activity. Sorry, but your analogy makes little sense in light of the very small overall increase in temperature.

"Man made global warming exists, it would be absurd to think otherwise."

A butterfly in a 50 mph wind has an effect on the wind too, it is a question of magnitude. Lord Kelvin expressed it best.

"When you measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about it is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind."

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas on Earth. Water vapor is the greenhouse gas that produces the hospitable conditions allowing life to thrive. The attempt to use Mercury and Venus as examples is rather silly. Of course your hard going to be hard pressed to explain Mars recent global warming on fossil fuels.

The little ice age, (and the Medieval Warm Period for that matter), were not confined to Europe, it was a world wide climate phenomena. Physical evidence has been found in North America, South America, Ethiopia, China, New Zealand, Alaska, Russia, Australia, Greenland and South Africa (the list is longer but you get the point). There are virtually 100’s of peer reviewed papers published that support this.

And where do you get the idea we are in a cool period? Care to provide some references to support that claim? We are in fact, geologically speaking, in a warm period, an interglacial.

"The only study that tended to show an increase showed such a minor increase that it would not explain more than a fraction of a degree."

I suggest you do a little research as there is a lot more than one study that shows a correlation with the surface temperature and it is “more than a fraction of a degree.” OTOH the correlation of CO2 with temperature is more problematic then the solar connection since half the warming happened before there was a significant increase in CO2. Add to that when CO2 was increasing at a significant rate the temperature was actually going down (1940’s – 1970’s)!

“Speaking as a Canadian environmentalist, I will always defend the hockey stick!”

Joe,
It seems you have some Canucks off the reservation, they are turning your hockey stick into a bathtub.

Mr. Katzman;

Actually, we could build a dimmer switch for the sun by hanging stuff at the Earth-Sun L1 point. It would be expensive, but far less expensive than the Kyoto Treaty while being far more effective.

P.S. Just to nit pick, there are not five Lagrange points that surround the Sun. There are five Lagrange points for every planet with respect to the Sun (Lagrange points are only defined for a primary and and orbiting secondary, not for a single object such as the Sun).