Global warming

[mhaze]

This article goes into some speculation about the changing economics and the consequences up north. I found it rather interesting. As my previous story about the Aleut indicated, a lot of those changes will be good changes.[/quotes]

Good by whose value judgement? Yours? Or theirs? Does "good" mean becoming more like you? More modern, more advanced?

Are we going down the road here of "let's maintain these pristine native ecologically sound native cultures?" Surely not. Are you opposed to sound economic development? How about powerplants? Cell phone towers? High speed data backbones? Hospitals?

If the economic consequences up north are positive, people will move there to take advantage. That's not likely to be good for the locals. Never is.

Long winters in the cabin with a plump wife, no end of firewood, the smoked bounty of a summer's hunting away from the wife hanging from the rafters, the pots of vodka and the trinkets for the wife you get for the furs, plus some coin, maybe some opium ... it's not all bad. Russians really know how to build comfy cabins from wood.

You're surely not serious.

And what is that hanging from the rafters, the minimum 18 large game (elk, moose) per person that it would take to barely survive per person (smoked, mind you, with a circle of wolves all the time.

Or is it the wife, strung up in a noose, after cabin fever set in?

Would by chance you have read L'amour, "The Last of the Breed"?"

 

[CapelDodger]

Just curious what you think about this:

***********

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm

June 21, 2005

One point apparently causing confusion among our readers is the relative abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere today as compared with Earth's historical levels. Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective - understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly "catastrophically high." Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years.

Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that's a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now?"

**************

A classic example of taking refuge in the past. "What's going on has never happened before, so why should it be any different this time?"

The Ordovician is a bit of a reach; time was the Medieval Warm Period was a close enough refuge, before that the Little Ice Age seemed safe. A 1934 Warm Period has recently emerged, but will prove as fleeting as a Perseid meteor. The refuge trend is strongly into the past and away from the present and future.

The only relevant period is the current inter-glacial, during which stable climatic period the human race has blossomed into a population of six and a bit billion dependent on an agriculture which is tuned to that stable climate.

It doesn't take a big spanner in the works to screw that up pretty horribly. Just wait and watch.

 

[CapelDodger]

Are we going down the road here of "let's maintain these pristine native ecologically sound native cultures?"

Surely not.

I'm asking why you think you're the judge of what's good for these people, and what you base that judgement on.

Are you opposed to sound economic development?

Sound on what basis? GDP? Greater integration with the money economy?

Are you opposed to the idea that the Aleuts could reject incomers and gain all the benefits for theselves?

How about powerplants? Cell phone towers? High speed data backbones? Hospitals?

It's always all or the other with you, isn't it?



You're surely not serious.

And what is that hanging from the rafters, the minimum 18 large game (elk, moose) per person that it would take to barely survive per person (smoked, mind you, with a circle of wolves all the time.

Or is it the wife, strung up in a noose, after cabin fever set in?

Would by chance you have read L'amour, "The Last of the Breed"?"

What you seem to have missed is that I was referring to Russians, not the New World's raw recruits. Eighteen moose in six months for two adults and the kids? Tell me where you eat, I'll buy shares. Better yet, tell me who delivers to you, you can't be mobile.

Apart from the game you've hauled back, there's the vegetables, fish, and preserves the wife has sorted out while she's been catching up with the goss and you've been flexing your pecs with the lads and dropping in on those Estonian lasses ... it's not all bad.

The fundamental problem with modern family life is that it's every bloody day. That's not what we're built for. "Wait till your father gets home!" means something when it has a few months to ferment.

 

[BeAChooser]

It doesn't take a big spanner in the works to screw that up pretty horribly. Just wait and watch.

What I'm watching are the outer planets warming due to solar heating and computer models that don't account for that heating.

What I'm watching is the bulk of Antarctica growing colder, not warmer and the main accumulation of ice growing thicker, not melting.

What I'm watching is scientific literature that historically shows changes in temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide.

What I'm watching are predictions based on computer models that are all over the map and whose reliability and accuracy are completely unknown.

What I'm watching are folks who can't even accurately predict the weather next week telling me what the climate will be a half century from now.

What I'm watching are bogus claims by the Al Gore faction that "zero percent" of scientists disagree on global warming.

What I'm watching are liberals trying to get the US to shoulder the burden for stopping global warming.

What I'm watching are liberals even blaming us for China's unrestrained growth in CO2 emissions.

What I'm watching are liberals like Congressman Dingel calling for draconian global warming taxes that would certainly cripple the economy.

Yes, I am watching ...

 

[mhaze]

What I'm watching are the outer planets warming due to solar heating and computer models that don't account for that heating.

What I'm watching is the bulk of Antarctica growing colder, not warmer and the main accumulation of ice growing thicker, not melting.

What I'm watching is scientific literature that historically shows changes in temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide.

What I'm watching are predictions based on computer models that are all over the map and whose reliability and accuracy are completely unknown.

What I'm watching are folks who can't even accurately predict the weather next week telling me what the climate will be a half century from now.

What I'm watching are bogus claims by the Al Gore faction that "zero percent" of scientists disagree on global warming.

What I'm watching are liberals trying to get the US to shoulder the burden for stopping global warming.

What I'm watching are liberals even blaming us for China's unrestrained growth in CO2 emissions.

What I'm watching are liberals like Congressman Dingel calling for draconian global warming taxes that would certainly cripple the economy.

Yes, I am watching ...

You must have them eyes open.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ok, between you and varwoche I can definitely see something there. I will note, however, that despite that they might be very minor in the scientific world, they are absolutely huge in the political world (which might be, like many other things in politics, where things get messed up).

The IPCC was created by the political world to convey the existing science to them in a way they could understand. Sort of. It's a conduit between the scientific world and the political. Naturally, the media clamps onto the political end rather than the scientific end. Science is a turn-off, but everybody thinks they understand politics.

Aside from the obvious one of the general belief long ago that the Earth was the center of the universe, there is one more I can think of off the top of my head. Just a short few hundred years ago the scientific community believed that all the spaces in the world (nay, universe) were filled with a substance called "ether"

There's also phlogiston to explain combustion, but that theory was blown away by thermodynamics and the redox principle when the subject became economically significant. The ether thing had to wait on Marconi before it really mattered in practical terms.

Lots of blanks have been filled in since those days. There's not much space left for surprises to jump out at us.

 

[mhaze]

What you seem to have missed is that I was referring to Russians, not the New World's raw recruits. Eighteen moose in six months for two adults and the kids? Tell me where you eat, I'll buy shares. Better yet, tell me who delivers to you, you can't be mobile.

Apart from the game you've hauled back, there's the vegetables, fish, and preserves the wife has sorted out while she's been catching up with the goss and you've been flexing your pecs with the lads and dropping in on those Estonian lasses ... it's not all bad.

The fundamental problem with modern family life is that it's every bloody day. That's not what we're built for. "Wait till your father gets home!" means something when it has a few months to ferment.

Okay, the wild is a paradise for you.

I'll take a couple of these up North, and see what happens then.

 

[Pipirr]

What I'm watching are the outer planets warming due to solar heating and computer models that don't account for that heating.

What I'm watching is the bulk of Antarctica growing colder, not warmer and the main accumulation of ice growing thicker, not melting.

What I'm watching is scientific literature that historically shows changes in temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide.

What I'm watching are predictions based on computer models that are all over the map and whose reliability and accuracy are completely unknown.

What I'm watching are folks who can't even accurately predict the weather next week telling me what the climate will be a half century from now.

What I'm watching are bogus claims by the Al Gore faction that "zero percent" of scientists disagree on global warming.

What I'm watching are liberals trying to get the US to shoulder the burden for stopping global warming.

What I'm watching are liberals even blaming us for China's unrestrained growth in CO2 emissions.

What I'm watching are liberals like Congressman Dingel calling for draconian global warming taxes that would certainly cripple the economy.

Yes, I am watching ...

The word you want might in fact be 'cherry picking'.

 

[BeAChooser]

The word you want might in fact be 'cherry picking'.

As opposed to 'lying' which is what Al Gore and his supporters have been doing?

 

[a_unique_person]

What percentage of total GHG is alleged to have been contributed by "us"?

What increase above what had been a system in relative balance, is the question.

The answer, pretty well all of it.

How then could such a simple minded mistake occur at NASA? Of course now it is said to be insignificant as it went in the direction unfavorable to AGW. One can only imagine another Newsweek edition proclaiming the egregious error had it been on the other foot.
Since apparently you don’t follow what’s going on at Climate Audit, it might be of benefit to do so and you can contribute to the discussions since what he’s doing is “nothing”?

If you compare the two global temperature graphs for the period, they are still pretty well identical.

Please cite specific papers that support the AGW hypothesis of CO2 being the main driver of climate change. Thus far all I've seen are scripted “how to talk to a denier” retorts, ad hom attacks, opinions, long speeches, lists of supporters and links to journal editorials, news headlines and IPCC.

Have you even read the IPCC report yet? It cites every claim it makes.

 

[a_unique_person]

As opposed to 'lying' which is what Al Gore and his supporters have been doing?

Al Gore has been telling people the worst case scenario. It may not happen, but if you are managing risk, it's always worth knowing what that is. Given the extremely rapid melting in the Arctic circle, worst case may well be on the cards. (Bush could have done with a little of that caution in Iraq). Gore, however, is irellevant to the science.

 

[a_unique_person]

Subsequently, James Annan, who works with the Data Assimilation group at the Frontier Research Center for Global Change, noted the "bet" and emailed Lindzen about setting up an actual bet. Annan and Lindzen engaged in an exchange but were unable to settle on a mutually acceptable bet. Annan summarizes their exchange on his blog, claiming that Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds on global temperatures in 20 years being lower than they are now.
Obviously, I feel responsible for getting this whole thing started. I contacted Lindzen, who insisted that I had misquoted him. Given the rancor that sometimes accompanies the debate over climate change I try to be very careful about what I report. I've looked again at the notes of my phone interview with Lindzen and they say what I reported in my November column. At this point, I can only conclude that when I was taking down my notes during our conversation, I somehow misheard or misunderstood Lindzen. My mistake.
So, for the record, what does Lindzen actually believe? This is how Lindzen responded to Annan: "The quote [at Reason Online] was out of context. I think the odds are about 50-50. I said that if anyone were willing to give warming much higher odds than that, I would be tempted to take the bet." Lindzen and Annan subsequently haggled a bit over what would be a fair bet. From Lindzen's point of view, any such bet would be between people like Annan, who are convinced by climate model projections that average global temperatures should be increasing about 0.3C per decade, and people who think it's even odds that temperatures will be lower than they are now in 20 years.

Lindzen doubts that AGW is proven, but what odds does he call it at? 50/50! He is willing to bet the house on those odds?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html

 

[varwoche]

What I'm watching is the bulk of Antarctica growing colder, not warmer and the main accumulation of ice growing thicker, not melting ... Yes, I am watching...

You need to watch with more care as these claims are bogus.

the ice sheet's mass has decreased significantly from 2002 to 2005 ... The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters article

A new analysis of the past 30 years of records from nine research stations, including Amundsen-Scott at the South Pole, reveals that the air above the entirety of Antarctica has warmed by as much as 0.70 degree Celsius per decade during the winter months ... warming trend is consistent across data from multiple stations run by multiple countries using multiple types of instruments. article

 

[BeAChooser]

Al Gore has been telling people the worst case scenario.

No, Gore has been LYING when he's told people that there are "zero percent" of scientists who disagree with his version of global warming.

Gore, however, is irellevant to the science.

But he and the other liberals pushing his agenda are not irrelevant to our response to science. Doing what folks like Gore and Dingel are pushing would be highly irresponsible and would seriously damage this country.

 

[BeAChooser]

You need to watch with more care as these claims are bogus.

Perhaps.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N45/C2.jsp " Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635. The authors "analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003." This survey, in their words, "covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet," which together comprise "72% of the grounded ice sheet." ... snip ... Wingham et al. report that "overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1." To calculate the ice sheet's change in mass, however, "requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred," and when the researchers' best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1." This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N35/C1.jsp " Van de Berg, W.J., van den Broeke, M.R., Reijmer, C.H. and van Meijgaard, E. 2006. Reassessment of the Antarctic surface mass balance using calibrated output of a regional atmospheric climate model. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006495 ... snip ... Van de Berg et al. report that "the SMB integrated over the grounded ice sheet (171 ± 3 mm year-1) exceeds previous estimates by as much as 15%." The largest differences between their results and those of others, according to them, are "up to 1 m year-1 higher in the coastal zones of East and West Antarctica, which are without exception in areas with few observations.""

http://www.physorg.com/news4180.html " May 20, 2005, East Antarctic Ice Sheet Gains Mass and Slows Sea Level Rise, Study Finds ... snip ... in a study to appear in this week's online edition of Science, a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia has found that the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass. From 1992 to 2003, Curt Davis, MU professor of electrical and computer engineering, and his team of researchers observed 7.1 million kilometers of the ice sheet, using satellites to measure changes in elevation. They discovered that the ice sheet's interior was gaining mass by about 45 billion tons per year, which was enough to slow sea level rise by .12 millimeters per year."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898 "Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise, Curt H. Davis,1* Yonghong Li,1 Joseph R. McConnell,2 Markus M. Frey,3 Edward Hanna4, Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020130074839.htm "January 30, 2002, Scientists Detect Thickening Of West Antarctic Ice Sheet ... snip ... Assistant professor of Earth sciences Slawek Tulaczyk and Ian Joughin of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory used satellite radar images to map the flow of ice in the ice sheet and estimate how its mass is changing. They reported their findings in the January 18 issue of the journal Science. "The West Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating for several thousand years, so to look now and see that it is growing is staggering to me," Tulaczyk said. "Within the past 200 years, the ice sheet seems to have switched fairly rapidly from a negative mass balance to a positive mass balance."

But even if the study you cite is correct, scientists didn't know it until last year. Prior to that all the studies showed the ice mass growing. But that didn't alter the claims of the Gore and the global warming contingent, did it? What's that say?

By the way, concerning the Grace based study ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html "But some scientists remain unconvinced. Oregon state climatologist George Taylor noted that sea ice in some areas of Antarctica is expanding and part of the region is getting colder, despite computer models that would predict otherwise."

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060308.html "Recent analysis of Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data indicate that the Antarctic ice sheet might have lost enough mass to cause the worlds' oceans to rise about 1.2 millimeters, on the average, from between 2002 and 2005. Although this may not seem like much, the equivalent amount of water is about 150 trillion liters, equivalent to the amount of water used by US residents in three months. Uncertainties in the measurement make the mass loss uncertain by about 80 trillion liters."

Oh ... and one more thing ...

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9902/03/antarctic.ice.sheet/ NASA animates 20,000 years of Antarctic ice history ... snip ... The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has developed 3-D computer animation showing the retreat of the west Antarctic ice sheet over 20,000 years, speeded up into a few minutes of dramatic video footage. ... snip ... "During the last 20,000 years, the west Antarctic ice sheet lost two-thirds of its mass and raised the sea level 10 meters. It still contains enough ice to raise the sea level by another 5 meters if it were to lose the remainder of its mass,' ... snip ... there is evidence that the west Antarctic ice sheet may have melted and reformed several times during the past 11 million years."

Did Man do that?

 

[varwoche]

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N45/C2.jsp " Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006.
...
This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."

Either CO2 Science (agenda-driven propagandists/doofuses) spun the facts beyond recognition, or else study authors Wingham & Shepherd have done an about face...

After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth's ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. link

I'll take a look at your other cites once you acknowledge that your first cite has been refuted by the authors themselves. Fair enough? (I won't waste my time on your other CO2 Science cite though, for obvious reasons.)

 

[Megalodon]

Not misdirecting? Then...

Please clarify which of the prior messages, let's say from 321 to 337 (page 9) of this thread, discuss the reality and projections of global warming - as opposed to human caused global warming.

Or have you genuinely misunderstood the discussion and the intent of my and others' postings?

I can't misunderstand what are schizoid posts to begin with... I can't understand them either, if that makes you feel better.

I one breath you say that you think the globe is warming, and in the next you congratulate Exxon for funding sites that deny it. Then you start raving about a leftist cabal to "tax and spend", obvious missing the meaning of the words "leftist" and "tax", in the least.

Sometimes you are fun to engage, and we saw before we agree in a number of things. Some other times, you get carried away

 

[Megalodon]

Well, it is quite possible that they have different opinions than me on that. I generally feel along the same lines as John Christy on the topic... if you need me to tell you what his views are I'd be happy to.

So that is your problem... you thought I was targeting you! Silly newbie, you're not that important

Now, the articles you pointed out basically just say that C causes D, but doesn't comment on the status of whether A or B (or both) is causing C. The main thing that I'm interested in (I'm not sure about others) is which of A or B is causing C or (probably more appropriately) what mix of A and B is causing C. Focusing on only the C causes D part of it ignores the truth values of A and B.

The important part of the above is bolded. Don't take personally posts that are obviously general. Don't assume that every post is directed at you. Your blood pressure will be all the better for it...

Isn't a patronizing way of saying that Anti-AGW people are conspiracy theorists? That's how it came across to me... as a very condescending phrase.

Yes, it is. I intended it that way, and it was stamped and addressed. If you don't know enough about a forum's history, don't assume things. See varwoche's post above...

Ok then, maybe you could discuss my thoughts on the 800 year gap that I posted above and the apparent reluctance to open up research methods in some cases for starters? I'm fairly new here so I might have missed some of the threads that might have covered that.

In previous times (and still today), cycles of warming and cooling are mainly influenced by known orbital variations (the Milankovitch cycles). These alter the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, resulting in glacial and interglacial periods. the end of a glaciation would drive up the co2 content of the atmosphere, with the lag that you talk about.
Presently, we decided to remove from the soil the co2 that was stored during the Carboniferous and Permian and gush it into the atmposphere. This resulted in an unprecedented scenario, which we'll have to deal with. We left the last glaciation 11 000 years ago (give or take a Dryas), and are not due for the next one for 50 000 years, if memory serves me right.

And I don't know if the argument of Evolution is really similar in this case... last I recall there are no supernatural elements getting involved in this discussion. (Ok, yeah.. I know they post ID as scientific, but that doesn't really fly well... but all of that is a different topic for a different thread.)

Yes, and an old one at that. The comparison fares very well.

Anyways, read my comments to CapelDodger that I just posted... we shouldn't be afraid of people questioning our ideas in science as in theory it'll only lead to a better grasping of the truth. Sadly, some AGW people react very harshly to the idea that people would even think to question them.

Nobody is afraid of new ideas. We are tired of the old ones, constantly rehashed in face of all the evidence and previous discussion. It's sad that you feel wronged in this discussion, but the search function is your friend.

Cheers

 

[rockoon]

Either CO2 Science (agenda-driven propagandists/doofuses) spun the facts beyond recognition, or else study authors Wingham & Shepherd have done an about face...

My opinion of you sinks every single time I read one of your posts. For someone who is supposedly well read on the subject of climate science, you are wrong so often it is unbelievable. You are a liar for suggesting that the paper in question suggests anything but what the co2science abstract states. I cannot link to the actual paper (its on IEEE) but I can link to a harvard abstract of the paper:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006RSPTA.364.1627W

I'll take a look at your other cites once you acknowledge that your first cite has been refuted by the authors themselves. Fair enough? (I won't waste my time on your other CO2 Science cite though, for obvious reasons.)

Now I politely suggest that you look at his other cites without waiting for a response from him because your problem with this cite is imaginary.

I don't like liars and I don't like people who refuse to do the simplest bit of checking before they spout off about what they claim to "know" - you apparently don't know much about climate science because I've caught you time and again armed with lies and ignorance. Your claim to fame is collecting a bunch of links on global warming, and I suggest that your next step should be to actualy read them.

 

[mhaze]

I can't misunderstand what are schizoid posts to begin with... I can't understand them either, if that makes you feel better.

I one breath you say that you think the globe is warming, and in the next you congratulate Exxon for funding sites that deny it.

Looks like you forgot to mention Exxon's 2002 $100M grant to fund in Stanford's Global Science and Energy Project.

Sometimes you are fun to engage, and we saw before we agree in a number of things. Some other times, you get carried away

Ah yes.....but we had a similar conversation before in this very thread, back around #32-38 IFFC....let's see...here was where you brought in the "MARXIST CONSPIRACY" line -

Originally Posted by Megalodon
You would be right...

Is this going to turn into a "it's a international enviro-socialist conspiracy to sink the US" argument? If it is, I have more important things to do with my time.

What does that have to do with the science?

I have not seen Gore's movie, but given your persistent entumescence for the guy, forgive me if I take this with a grain of salt.

As I said, haven't seen the movie.



​

And here was my response.

Suit yourself, but you are welcome to show that I am wrong; for example show me where children in schools are taught that sea level rise is 2-3 mm per year, after they see Gore's movie. Curriculums are published, that should not be a problem right? So can you show where the actual science is taught and not the Alarmism?

RE "what does it have to do with the science", and "environ-conspiracy", I am a bit puzzled that the answers are not obvious. So here are just a couple answers.

1. What, exactly, do you tell people to change their behavior on? (determined by science, not alarmism)
2. What, exactly, do you spend public money and do reasearch on?
3. What changes, exactly, do cities make to have less adverse environmental impacts?
4. What is the focus of policy toward the third world?
5. Are carbon credits and carbon offsets good? Should they be implemented? How about straightout emissions taxes? (Based on science right?)

​

Here is your chance to show you have more of a brain than Joe the construction worker working out there on that rig for Exxon.