Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/5987229/Cloud-ship-scheme-to-deflect-the-suns-rays-is-favourite-to-cut-global-warming.html

Yeah the only thing these ships are going to be doing is stirring up storms.

I'm pretty sure they did something like this in the Matrix to stop the Machines, and looked how that turned out for us .

Well, there was the theory that inducing more tornados would help create planet-scale heat-sinks. It's not such a well-liked idea for obvious reasons.

They would cost $9 billion (£5.3 billion) to test and launch within 25 years, compared to the $250 billion that the world’s leading nations are considering spending each year to cut CO2 emissions, and the $395 trillion it would cost to launch mirrors into space.

Thats right. Lets not fix the problem. Lets just make a ridiculous fleet of dream boats.

Hey now, flying dream boats are the only things that keep some people afloat. [snicker].

How about they take that money and invest it in something useful, like actually trying to solve the problem?

Since when was global warming a problem anyway? I thought it was debunked as a myth long ago.

Axyl wrote:Since when was global warming a problem anyway? I thought it was debunked as a myth long ago.

Shhh Al Gore might take time away from hunting Manbearpig to put a beat down on ya with a solar panel or something.

We need nuclear power! Aliens are laughing at us!

barlio wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/5987229/Cloud-ship-scheme-to-deflect-the-suns-rays-is-favourite-to-cut-global-warming.html

Yeah the only thing these ships are going to be doing is stirring up storms.

I'm pretty sure they did something like this in the Matrix to stop the Machines, and looked how that turned out for us .

I think it was the Animatrix but yeah, that did not turn out good...

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:Hey now, flying dream boats are the only things that keep some people afloat. [snicker].

How about they take that money and invest it in something useful, like actually trying to solve the problem?

I know, all these scientists keep coming up with thses ideas that just "mask the problem" which is stupid, Your not solving anything!

It'll probably come back and bite us in the ass.

Does anyone else here think global warming is just part of the natural process of this planet?
It seems we had some ice ages come and go before this where glaciers covered a lot of the planet and they disappeared.

The planet does go through periods of cooling and warming, ice ages usually happen every 10-12000 yrs or so. We are overdue for another ice age at the moment.

Vulkan77 wrote:The planet does go through periods of cooling and warming, ice ages usually happen every 10-12000 yrs or so. We are overdue for another ice age at the moment.

Those periods also tend to come and go over thousands of years (not decades), and aren't accompanied by carbon levels not seen since before the time of the dinosaurs. Anyone thinking this is just an overdue period of thaw hasn't bothered to actually look into the issue.

I'm having a vision of a James Bond type dude having to use a nuclear powered seadoo to sneak him and his scientist girlfriend onto it so they can stop some bald dude from using it to spread PCP all over the world or something. Just sayin'...

Did anyone look at this design? Just stare at it for a few minutes, it WILL drive you totally mad.



I can't help but think that they actually meant to make it look like this... like a cloud ship, or something... instead of, something.



This is a huge joke, just laugh a bit, then slap the crap out of your government and while your at it tell them they are stupid for trying to put carbon taxes in place, and the whole whin-wham-doozle-crazy-hat plan that is involved with it.

You hand the government a serious job and they will almost inevitably manage to spin it into a PR campaign with two-sides neither of which can claim... oops, I am ranting, sorry .

ShumaGorath wrote:

They would cost $9 billion (£5.3 billion) to test and launch within 25 years, compared to the $250 billion that the world’s leading nations are considering spending each year to cut CO2 emissions, and the $395 trillion it would cost to launch mirrors into space.

Thats right. Lets not fix the problem. Lets just make a ridiculous fleet of dream boats.

Your liberal slip is showing, Shu.

The science behind these boats is no more solid than the science behind the Global Warming theory. Yes, I said 'theory' because no one has proven a damn thing.

There's more scientific evidence of a coming global cooling period than there is a warming. In fact, the current warm phase we humans are experiencing was predated by a massive cool period and this hot/cold cycle has been going on for some time. We have ice core samples and other hard evidence that proves that.

This thread title was misleading. I was actually expecting flying boats.

Orkeosaurus wrote:We need nuclear power! Aliens are laughing at us!

Nuclear power's great untill the first accident.

Then don't let the Soviets build our reactor for us.

The Green Git wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

They would cost $9 billion (£5.3 billion) to test and launch within 25 years, compared to the $250 billion that the world’s leading nations are considering spending each year to cut CO2 emissions, and the $395 trillion it would cost to launch mirrors into space.

Thats right. Lets not fix the problem. Lets just make a ridiculous fleet of dream boats.

Your liberal slip is showing, Shu.

The science behind these boats is no more solid than the science behind the Global Warming theory. Yes, I said 'theory' because no one has proven a damn thing.

There's more scientific evidence of a coming global cooling period than there is a warming. In fact, the current warm phase we humans are experiencing was predated by a massive cool period and this hot/cold cycle has been going on for some time. We have ice core samples and other hard evidence that proves that.

Yes, and if we stop all the carbon how will the trees breathe? No, there isn't more evidence of a global cooling period than one of warming. And yes, we are coming out of an ice age. These are in fact natural events that have taken place over thousands of years. However that has no bearing on the fact that even if there wasn't we would be causing just such an event. There are carbon levels in the atmosphere not seen since the time of the dinosaurs now, and they are only continuing to accelerate in growth. The greenhouse effect is a simple, demonstrable, and well documented effect. Global warming is one of the most heavily tested theories in history and 98% of the scientific community has come foreword to state that it is happening. Just because conservative talk radio doesn't want to believe the "liberal scientific community" doesn't mean it's not happening.

It just means your conservative slip is showing, and thats a slip you only get to hold when you skip your classes in school.

I do believe that the movement to save the planet from global warming is and will continue to be the largest scam the entire world has seen to date.

There is a lot of information about global warming to be sure, and a lot of it can be linked to the super-grandiose theory and help to lead people to believe that it is really as simple as scientists think.

We know next to diddly about the natural world, we are just starting to understand what the planet does to keep it's cycles moving. The one thing that tips me off is the fact that a lot of scientists are saying that the planet will not be able to take care of this problem... well that is really quite ignorant on the whole of it, but sensationalism sells. When and if the planet wants, we go, end of story. If you feel like arguing with a living rock that has slapped nearly all of the life off of it's surface at least a few times, by all means, you will not get far.

The amount of problems that humans have caused to this planet is severe, and the options that government powers are trying to implement have little to no bearing on the reality of the situation. We cannot counter the damage we have caused, all we can do is balance it along with efforts to help with the serious problems that we have caused, and more importantly can help to fix.

This is an old article but it gives a sense about how large the scope of this problem actually is, and more importantly how little is ACTUALLY being done about it.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/30136/story.htm

A bit more recent, and the difference between these two articles should show you what direction we are heading in. Slapping a dollar value onto the planet will not change a damn thing, especially when that is all that has really been done besides a tad more recycling.

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0529-biodiversity.html
(4.8 trillion dollars WHOOOO... who made these numbers though? Really, I feel like you missed a zero, but lies do need to be toned down from time to time.)

Here is a good link, lots of information here, though a bit out-of date.
http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-04/2005-04-19-voa1.cfm

Here is another pretty good break-down of the problems we face, and they are ALL proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. Global warming on the other hand is a plain, unadulterated blanket theory that fails to address half of the primary factors in the actual question posed.
Is it getting warmer? Yes
Are people the sole cause and therefore dutiful saviors to be? Erm... if you say so.

Before I too much into this, I could care less about global "blanket theory" warming Mcgillicuty. We need to work on the problems that have been serious issues in the public light for going on half a century now, with little to no effort in terms fixing the problems that we have created (and have factually and provably done so.) In other words as soon as the world at large stops acting like a group of immature, knee-jerking, and ever so subtly naive teenagers, then and only then will we actually be able to address an issue as intangible and supremely indirect as global warming.

Until then we should be focusing on things like saving the ocean and the forest, because ODDLY ENOUGH, they seem to be inextricably linked to the cycles of the planet, and we actually have massive amounts of information to directly confirm this. Talk about how plankton has been at an all time low as of late, and this is mainly attributed to overfishing and agricultural nutrient run-off. There were plans to attempt to help build up the plankton population through various techniques; but this is not what we continue to focus on, as a matter of fact that story seems to have disappeared entirely lately.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/05/plankton_planta/

We used to be able to plant trees, now that is just not fancy enough and we need magical lollipop boats to fight the boogie man with.

I would also like to add that I have family in Alaska, and I have heard from first-person accounts of exactly how bad it is getting up there, the main problems being on the coast... so yes, there is SOME method to this madness. You know what though, they appear to be focusing on planning and goals as communities, rather that relying on rhetorical situations to plea their case to a state and federal government that couldn't care less if you asked them to. The amount of work needed to keep Alaska coastal inhabitants intact is quite immense... that sounded like a poem .

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Impacts_of_global_warming_in_Alaska



Would you look at that, serious, very serious. The amount of damage to areas such as Alaska (who are much more susceptible to damage of this kind in the first place) is quite frightening, but a lot of it can be linked to oversights that plague governmental planning, furthermore GOODBYE PALIN!!!

Relapse wrote:Does anyone else here think global warming is just part of the natural process of this planet?
It seems we had some ice ages come and go before this where glaciers covered a lot of the planet and they disappeared.

Yep, the Earth has natural heating and warming. But it is a fallacy to note that something happens naturally and thereby assume that they cannot play affect that as well. For instance, it’s common knowledge we will all die one day, but that doesn’t make it sensible to go out and play dodgecar on the freeway, does it?

So we can look at the current rate of temperature increase, greater than any observed in history, and look at the part we’re playing and look to control that rate.

Vulkan77 wrote:The planet does go through periods of cooling and warming, ice ages usually happen every 10-12000 yrs or so. We are overdue for another ice age at the moment.

Not really. The idea of the Earth having some natural temperature that it moves above or below for periods is false. While Ice Ages will happen, the fact that it hasn’t happened for a while doesn’t make it more likely... you can’t really be ‘due’ for an ice age any more than you can be ‘due’ to roll snake eyes.

It’s more accurate to say the Earth is the temperature it is at right now, and if the Sun starts emitting more heat or the Earth retains more heat it will get hotter. If the Sun emits less heat or the Earth radiates more it will get colder. There are a lot of reasons for any of the above to happen, the one that is happening right now is that the Earth is retaining more heat as a result of increase levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

The Green Git wrote:Your liberal slip is showing, Shu.

Environmentalism isn’t a liberal thing. While environmentalism is loosely related to the left and so could be called a left wing thing, it isn’t a liberal thing.

The science behind these boats is no more solid than the science behind the Global Warming theory. Yes, I said 'theory' because no one has proven a damn thing.

Note that what science calls a theory is not what the term is used for in general parlance. They have near universal acceptance in their fields but they are called the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the theory evolution. This is because in science a theory refers to a general body of work with core hypothesis as points of reference.

The notion that the currently increasing temperatures have their origin in the actions of man is accepted by 97% of climatologists.

There's more scientific evidence of a coming global cooling period than there is a warming. In fact, the current warm phase we humans are experiencing was predated by a massive cool period and this hot/cold cycle has been going on for some time. We have ice core samples and other hard evidence that proves that.

The evidence for an ice age, generally defined as occurring from 1650 to 1850, is patchy at best. While periods of cold weather have been identified, these cold spells do not match up around the globe, with almost no correlation between northern and southern hemisphere cold spells. It appears likely the cold periods were local phenomenom.

But yes, broadly speaking we have had periods of high and low temperatures. But we’ve never had a period on record of warming like the current warming, and it appears the current rate of increase is growing. This rate of increase doesn’t match with modelling from solar models or anything like that, but it matches very closely with greenhouse models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:We used t be able to plant trees, now that is just not fancy enough and we need magical lollipop boats to fight the boogie man with.

Yeah, this is a really good point. The idea that if we build magic boats that can return the temperature to a ‘natural’ rate everything will be fine is bunk, assuming the only problem is the broad temperature and not how that heat is distributed across the planet and how it impacts local eco-systems.

For that matter, the idea of planting trees as carbon banks is bad for the same reason.

Sebster wrote:But yes, broadly speaking we have had periods of high and low temperatures. But we’ve never had a period on record of warming like the current warming, and it appears the current rate of increase is growing. This rate of increase doesn’t match with modelling from solar models or anything like that, but it matches very closely with greenhouse models.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

Sensationalist though it may be, here lies the rub. There is "conclusive" evidence OF evidence, but no conclusive proof to fact of OUR ACTUAL impact in this issue.

And.. well, and this part too...

http://plancktime.blogspot.com/2009/01/650-top-climatologists-dismiss-global.html

They must have been payed off right ... what a huge joke. Fix the real problems already, then address the issues that are out of our spectrum of full understanding until we can actually provide serious research and apply practical geo-warrior experience to the problem we see in the media nearly every day. Repetition tricks the weak of will, but new and verified FACTUAL (based on research that actually manages to produce rational and fair results and findings) information trumps a convoluted disagreement of facts any day.

A bit more in depth if you feel like reading.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

Here is a REALLY REALLY REALLY important bit... freakin' liberal media goons trying to be all smart with a smart hat.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html wrote:Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?

This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?

Erm... it can be true because it is a SCAM?!?
The lack of science behind most of this is really quite astounding. What is not astounding at all is how quickly people have chosen sides, and how tenaciously the media in general has protected and continues to protect the fallacies of the whole debate. Falliciousness... so lovely it hurts to say .

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html wrote:To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.

Can you say MADNESS? This is totally insane, to a degree that actually shakes my outlook for our current systems of government, media, and general regulation of living. You are lied to by the media, who is reflecting the lies of the state, then you tell your friends these lies, and everyone is all up in arms over a "rubber-ducky" theory. GO RUBBER-DUCKY GO!!!!

Sensationalist though it may be, here lies the rub. There is "conclusive" evidence OF evidence, but no conclusive proof to fact of OUR ACTUAL impact in this issue.

What kind of proof do you want? It's a bit difficult to actually proof a study without a control group. In fact its physically impossible. This is basic third grade science. All you can do in a physical phenomenon that can not be duplicated is observe, experiment, and draw correlation.

The Article you posted actually insists on that point and tries to dismiss the "rift" in the scientific community.

http://plancktime.blogspot.com/2009/01/650-top-climatologists-dismiss-global.html

Yep. Roughly 650 dissenters in a conference that included almost 12 thousand.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/771/cop14-poznan-climate-conference#Conferenceoutcome

You're right though. The conference was hardly a success and served to clarify that opposing studies could be drawn against mass consensus successfully, something which is at the core of scientific study.

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

I suppose we can all wait the 120 days and see if the 18% block demanding additional study (of the 650 only about a third actually tried to dismiss the theory, most called for further study and a more careful foray into action(6% actual dissent, roughly 94% consensus and 82% non skeptical, the same statistics that have been quoted for some time(triple brackets!))).

as for John Tomlinsons article (something your second linked pulled from) I'm not sure what to say. The mans a conservative windbag as much as any other conservative blogger who fails to site studies and misquotes out of context comments while mixing in wonderful tidbits like

Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.

without actually providing any sort of link or proof.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Conservative bloggers can't hyperlink.

The lack of science behind most of this is really quite astounding.

Are you a scientist? Do you perform peer reviews? Do you plan to actually site peer reviewed studies backing up your claims, or do you just want to link to more conservative bloggers?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

I guess as branch of the u.s. government probably has the same credibility as someone who can't hyperlink studies after saying we should pray for global warming in your eyes.

Can you say MADNESS? This is totally insane, to a degree that actually shakes my outlook for our current systems of government, media, and general regulation of living. You are lied to by the media, who is reflecting the lies of the state, then you tell your friends these lies, and everyone is all up in arms over a "rubber-ducky" theory. GO RUBBER-DUCKY GO!!!!

For a man who can't be bothered to post much better than John Tomlinsons you're shouting down popular media a lot. I can make websites. I know how to create blogsights, and I have some templates for user account controlled comment sections.

I can be as legitimate as that guy and say wacky things while quoting out of context and refusing to provide proof or links.

I apologize if I somehow offended you Shuma, it is true that I put a bit of a spin on the whole situation myself, and for that I do apologize.

I am not a scientist, but I have spent quite a bit of time looking into this, and I am not a fan of how the whole situation is turning out.

The main point I was trying to make is that the focus has turned from practical reality to impractical solutions like these magical boats. Global warming is real to some degree, but most of the information is speculative, and the solutions are impractical to say the least.

I would like to hear what you think we should do to counter global warming Shuma, and I do not say this to offend you.

Shuma wrote:...most called for further study and a more careful foray into action...

This is all I ask for, and all I would expect. I am not laying the trump card down by any means BTW, just trying to point out the fact that the whole discussion gets extremely complicated, and their are a lot more than two view points on this. I will avoid linking information without being previously accustomed to it's contents in the future, Google doesn't like me very much . Yet again, I do apologize for my abrupt and slightly over-the-top post, but I meant no harm, and my opinion is not one of much consequence either way.

I apologize if I somehow offended you Shuma, it is true that I put a bit of a spin on the whole situation myself, and for that I do apologize.

To be honest I think I mischaracterized your intentions when I read your post, I apologize if I sounded overharsh or aggressive.

I am not a scientist, but I have spent quite a bit of time looking into this, and I am not a fan of how the whole situation is turning out.

How do you mean?

The main point I was trying to make is that the focus has turned from practical reality to impractical solutions like these magical boats. Global warming is real to some degree, but most of the information is speculative, and the solutions are impractical to say the least.

The magic boat fleet is actually practical. Just stupid. Realistically practical solutions are simple. Curb future greenhouse gas emissions, slow and then stop the deforestation of the amazon (as well as other parts of the planet, the amazon is a giant carbon and heat sink). And attempt to attain carbon and energy neutrality as fast as possible.

I would like to hear what you think we should do to counter global warming Shuma, and I do not say this to offend you.

Don't worry, I'm not offended. I just tend to react overly aggressive to things like this at times.

I personally want a national consensus between china, the U.S., india, and europe concerning Co2 emissions. As well as a consensus about deforestation in south america and in other places abroad. Climate change is one effect of the problem of careless industrialization, but it's not the only one. Food crisis, drout, and the infertility of land are going to be huge problems soon. As will the problems of energy use and transportation.

None of these problems are insurmountable, but they will be if nothing is acted on. I just want people to get their act together and work proactively rather than in normal reactionary fashion. This isn't an issue that can be fixed once it's in full effect.

This is all I ask for, and all I would expect. I am not laying the trump card down by any means BTW, just trying to point out the fact that the whole discussion gets extremely complicated, and their are a lot more than two view points on this. I will avoid linking information without being previously accustomed to it's contents in the future, Google doesn't like me very much . Yet again, I do apologize for my abrupt and slightly over-the-top post, but I meant no harm, and my opinion is not one of much consequence either way.

It's ok to want more study before the call to action is truly made. Just keep in mind that with issues like this one, proactive action is required and while everyone wants more test results, not everyone thinks it's a good idea to wait on them. Especially when the field is so cluttered with nay sayers that honestly have questionable motivations or lack of experience (such as oil futures experts or alaskan congressman).

These Cloud Ships won't work because they'll malfunction and spit out clouds that eat through our O-zone layer and cause the End o' the World.

In 2012.

Shuma wrote:

Wrex wrote:I am not a scientist, but I have spent quite a bit of time looking into this, and I am not a fan of how the whole situation is turning out.

How do you mean?

The problems that seem to have arisen due to the debate on a whole are a bit shocking to me, mainly the U.S. governments inability to take forward action. I remember a couple years ago California was planning (well talking at the very least) of subsidizing solar panels for pretty much any house that wanted them. Lack of public interest could have been the reason this plan took full effect, but the technology is there and it is a cost-effective start to a solution. The only positive note about all of this is the fact that solar technology is still being heavily researched, and the demand is still present, even in this recession. The amount of effort to implement some of the more obvious ergonomic countermeasures to energy use has been quite astounding, but most of it seems PR driven... in the land of the Bay area where we worry that our bridge-funding is actually paying for hot-tubs and Cadillac SUV's... man that is actually quite depressing.

Shuma wrote:I personally want a national consensus between china, the U.S., india, and europe concerning Co2 emissions. As well as a consensus about deforestation in south america and in other places abroad. Climate change is one effect of the problem of careless industrialization, but it's not the only one. Food crisis, drout, and the infertility of land are going to be huge problems soon. As will the problems of energy use and transportation.

None of these problems are insurmountable, but they will be if nothing is acted on. I just want people to get their act together and work proactively rather than in normal reactionary fashion. This isn't an issue that can be fixed once it's in full effect.

I feel pretty much the same way, but the political resistance to this is really quite horrific to put it lightly. The U.S. is just to high on the horse to actually take any action, and there seems to be no compromise on the main points in sight. A lot of issues that have been present on the agenda for decades are being pushed to the side due to this. I personally blame a good portion of the larger Corporations, and more importantly the governments that so liberally guard their rights to rape the planet and it's inhabitants. The amount of money in Washington being spent to counter any heavy weight opinions makes me cry for our future, although this may (probably is quite frankly) a step in our otherwise intricate evolution set by the standards we have implemented over the past two or three centuries.

Here is a fantastic link that has a huge amount of information regarding Corporations and their part in this whole problem. I think the corporations should be the ones that are held responsible for these actions, not the government, perhaps the people as well. The problems with laying this on the people is that most of us are more than willing to do our part, and the Corporations are not; the government is just along for the ride, do not let them fool you.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/55/corporations-and-the-environment

Being interested in agriculture in general, and studying to get a Landscape Architecture degree I have to take MAJOR offense to Monsanto specifically; this Corporation could very well be a prime contributor to some of the more serious issues we are facing in terms of damage to the earth. The terminator seed program is by far one of the worst things that they have EVER created, fortunately there seems to be at least some action to prevent the global use of this type of product.

"Controlling our food" Documentary, 109 minutes.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6262083407501596844

Terminator seeds
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Transnational_corps/TerminatorSeeds_Monsanto.html

Terminator seeds
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Transnational_corps/TerminatorSeeds_Monsanto.html

Terminator seeds
http://ontariolocavore.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/keep-terminator-seeds-out-of-canada-actions-you-can-take/

Wrexasaur wrote:http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

Sensationalist though it may be, here lies the rub. There is "conclusive" evidence OF evidence, but no conclusive proof to fact of OUR ACTUAL impact in this issue.

Um, you might have linked to the wrong thing, or you're making a very odd point or something. That link shows near complete support for man made global warming among climatologists, 97%. The key quote from the link; "the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

And.. well, and this part too...

http://plancktime.blogspot.com/2009/01/650-top-climatologists-dismiss-global.html

You've fallen for junk science there. The link you gave cites them as dissenting climatologists, but if you actually follow through and look into it you'll find none of the 650 scientists were climatologists. If you look at the top list of names you've got physicist Ivar Giaever, meteorologist Joanne Simpson, physical chemist Kiminori Itoh, geophycisist Arun D. Ahluwalia Manuel Velasco Herrera and chemical engineer Geoffrey Duffy.

Now, you might say they're still scientists and many are very skilled in their fields, but being a scientist doesn't make you an expert in all science. As an example, take the popularly held opinion that Paul Giamatti is a good actor. You might not be sure because you haven't seen any of his movies and acting is a complicated thing to judge sometimes so it'd be good to get some expert opinions. So imagine if someone said they worked in film and said Giamatti was actually quite rubbish. They tell you they work in make-up,then show you a list of 650 other make-up people, production designers, sound engineers and all kinds of technical fields in film who also think Giamatti is rubbish. Now, they may be very good in make-up and set design and all that, they may even have academy awards for their work, but why would you listen to them over actual actors? Especially when 97% of the people in that field are saying he's very good?

So when it comes to climate, do you listen to the 97% of climatologists who say it's real and it's caused by man, or 650 scientists who don't even study climate?

They must have been payed off right ... what a huge joke. Fix the real problems already, then address the issues that are out of our spectrum of full understanding until we can actually provide serious research and apply practical geo-warrior experience to the problem we see in the media nearly every day. Repetition tricks the weak of will, but new and verified FACTUAL (based on research that actually manages to produce rational and fair results and findings) information trumps a convoluted disagreement of facts any day.

This is a non-argument put forward by people set against environmental regulation. It's a non-argument because there'll never be a smoking gun. There will always be another piece of science that’d be nice to have, always a part of an assumption that should be further tested. There will always be a guy somewhere who thinks climate change is junk. Fields that are hundreds of years old are still growing and developing, still brining up new questions – but the cores of those fields remain constant – for all the discoveries of physics on the core concepts remain, an object at rest will stay at rest, an object in motion will continue its motion.

Climatology should continue to advance and grow, we need to understand there is time pressure to this issue, we’ve reached a point where we know the basics quite well. We need to act.

A bit more in depth if you feel like reading.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

That's just the link provided in your link above. It's just some blogger who either didn't bother to do the research to find out the 650 scientists weren't climatologists, and then claimed they were. His research was so poor that a random on the internet like me found out it's junk inside five minutes of searching. Or possibly he knew they weren't climatologists and lied to you. Either way...

Here is a REALLY REALLY REALLY important bit... freakin' liberal media goons trying to be all smart with a smart hat.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html wrote:Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?

He isn't a climatologist. Why would you take the words of a physical chemist at face value, while assuming poor motive among people who actually work in the field? Your need to believe in real debate in the field to prove you have a balanced view is skewing your judgement. Sometimes only one side is full of it, and this is one of those occasions.

Erm... it can be true because it is a SCAM?!?
The lack of science behind most of this is really quite astounding. What is not astounding at all is how quickly people have chosen sides, and how tenaciously the media in general has protected and continues to protect the fallacies of the whole debate. Falliciousness... so lovely it hurts to say .

Except the science isn't loose. There are powerful models that are showing excellent predictive power in worldwide temperatures, and these models place strong weighting on greenhouse emissions. The only people you're finding to say otherwise don't even work in climatology.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html wrote:To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.

Can you say MADNESS? This is totally insane, to a degree that actually shakes my outlook for our current systems of government, media, and general regulation of living.

You know that's 45 trillion to be spent by 2050? So if you look at the current world GDP of 60 trillion, and multiply that over the 42 years until 2050, you're looking at 1.7% of GDP. So we’re talking about slowly increasing expenditure on measures so that in 40 years time it will have increased to average less than 2% of GDP. In that time we will continue to study the field and improve our methods of controlling emissions.

Which is a perfectly sensible measure to take to this very serious issue. But then you have some guy in a political blog jumping up and down about 45 trillion, giving no context and hoping just to scare readers. You need to stop taking the words of disingenuous bloggers at face value.

You are lied to by the media, who is reflecting the lies of the state, then you tell your friends these lies, and everyone is all up in arms over a "rubber-ducky" theory. GO RUBBER-DUCKY GO!!!!

Actually, you'd be surprised how much honest, open debate is out there, looking to progress towards solutions to real problems. It isn't even hard to find, if you care to go looking. Of course, there's a lot of ideology, spin and politicised nonsense. It's hard to make sure you're only getting the good stuff and you're not always going to make the right calls, but as a tip when in doubt look for the opinions of experts in the field, and never read political blogs.