Slashdot Mirror

Here's the evidence:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Happy reading.

And if you don't think you can have any effect whatsoever on the lifestyles of other people, then you are just confirming most peoples views of US climate sceptics as being entirely selfish and self-centred. nice work!

Sorry to answer twice and don't take this the wrong way. I dismissed your post when I saw the name Singer but it struck me later that you may not be aware of what "the work" actually is.

The IPCC reports are here (the the attribution section of the 2007 SPM is a good place to start), also this site is run by some world class climatologists who contributed to the reports. A couple of names you might want to check out on wikipedia are James Hansen (Head of NOAA and IMHO a model of what a "public servant" should be) and James Lovelock ("The eccentric father of Earth Sciences"). Of course you could always watch the movie, politics to one side, Al Gore's movie is actually just a "slide show" of what the IPCC reports say. Hansen has a cameo in that too.

I'm an old fart and feel it's my duty to tell you a story....

I have followed this subject since I saw the imfamous "ice age" article in National Geographic back in the 70's, I thought it was BS and the story died a natural death, OTOH: I was about 16-17 and was firmly convinved that Uri Gellr could bend spoons if he frowned in the right way. In the early 80's a thin book about skepticisim written by a magicain taught me more about science than all my high school teachers put together (bless them, they tried). Sadly I don't remeber the title of Randi's book but Carl Sagan is a good read.

"Pay attention to what the real scientist are saying directly."

Good advice

I also decided to scrap a rather lengthy discussion of your various links. I can't take someone seriously who substitutes his sources to mine, then claims that my sources don't support my position. Not to mention who thinks that a page from 1997 (complete with broken source links) and anything from co2science.com provides useful discussion material. Wake me up when you have some material that is current, relevant and peer-reviewed to discuss.

"If you ever find a group of scientists who are NOT trying to debunk each other's findings then you've discovered a group of non-scientists."
Here you go: http://www.ipcc.ch/

For that, take a look at the IPCC report, which has been reviewed by thousands of scientists all over the world over many years.

Please...stop this nonsense about fixing global warming and stopping the impending doom and spend the billions on fixing actual problems we have NOW, like world hunger and the poor state of medical care.

IHAMIAS*

You might want to read the IPCC assessment of the affects climate change will have on food production and the spread of tropical diseases.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf

Here are a few relevant parts (emphasis added):

Overall, climate change is projected to increase threats to human health, particularly
in lower income populations, predominantly within tropical/subtropical countries.
Climate change can affect human health directly (e.g., reduced cold stress in temperate countries
but increased heat stress, loss of life in floods and storms) and indirectly through changes in the
ranges of disease vectors (e.g., mosquitoes),3 water-borne pathogens, water quality, air quality,
and food availability and quality (medium to high confidence).

Where there is also a large decrease in rainfall in subtropical and tropical dryland/
rainfed systems, crop yields would be even more adversely affected. These estimates include some
adaptive responses by farmers and the beneficial effects of CO2 fertilization, but not the impact of
projected increases in pest infestations and changes in climate extremes. The ability of livestock
producers to adapt their herds to the physiological stresses associated with climate change is
poorly known. Warming of a few C or more is projected to increase food prices globally, and may
increase the risk of hunger in vulnerable populations.

The impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately upon developing countries
and the poor persons within all countries, and thereby exacerbate inequities in
health status and access to adequate food, clean water, and other resources.

Starting to put the connections together yet? Climate change is a meta-issue. Dealing with climate change is directly working on world hunger and health.

(* I have a masters in atmospheric science.)

The Maldive islands will disappear under the sea in less than 50 years. Why? Because icebergs melt, slowly but most surely. Why? I'll let you try and answer this last question.

Thanks for the laugh. With luck I'll still be around in 50 years to see that your wrong. The IPCC, which is cited by Global Warming alarmists as the symbol of scientific consensus suggests that by 2100 sea levels will rise between 9-37cm from 1990 to 2100. Check the report yourself here if you don't believe me. The Maldive Islands are 2.3m above sea level, on average. A worst case rise of 19cm in the next 50 years then, would certainly have an impact. It is utter hyperbole though to suggest that they'll disappear under the ocean.
It's ridiculous claims like yours that causes people to dismiss Global Warming as a myth, since arguments like yours have as much scientific basis as the notion that global climate is actually cooling.

Oh, the realistic worst case scenario as given by the IPCC is a lot worse than that. Both in the number of degrees increased, and the negative effects on economy and environment.

Well if you pick your data well and extrapolate insanely, you can get some scary figures -

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/ 05.24.jpg

It's a graph which is flat with a lot of noise. They take an upward spike out of the noise and assuming it's a trend that will continue for the next hundred years. But there's nothing in the data that shows any sign that a 6 degree C rise is about to happen. If I'd done this sort of thing in a physics experiment at school people would have thought it was a joke.

And the idea that we should use this sort of science to make policy decisions about several percent of GDP is laughable.

"My feeling is that I believe that it is certainly POSSIBLE that global warming is the result of CO2 emissions. However, nobody has stepped forward with definitive evidence to show me that there is a link between warming and CO2 emissions."

The Evidence is not disputed by the scientific community, although many scientists belive the IPCC is a conservative assesment of our current understanding. The required GHG cuts are somewhere between the two political extremes of "zero emmissions" and "bussiness as usual", similarly the "cause" of the warming is part natural but predominently man-made.

The problem for people who don't accept the 100+yr old repeatable observation that C02 acts as a GHG is to point to an alternative explaination for the observed warming. In other words natural "forcings" have been accunted for, so where is the extra warming coming from if not from GHG emmissions?

I would suggest, in addition to watching the Earth for climate change, that we also watch other planets. I've read recently that some research points to part of the climate change problem being the sun itself.

I don't know who told you that, but it isn't true. Solar irradiance is a very small part of global warming. This is the conclusion in the IPCC's latest report: see this presentation from the vice chair of working group one (top link, the relevant slide is 27). The main reason we can separate the two is that heating from the sun varies with respect to altitude in a different way than anthropogenic heating (unfortunately I don't have those slides for you).

I'm researching the dynamics and development of sea ice. Funding comes from ESA, and so it's from European governments. I fail to notice any political requirements in my work.. =). Besides, I fail to see any possible motivation behind pretending global warming is true.

How about "there's no known link of any kind between jelly beans and cancer" for an answer? When somebody says that, there's an actual claim and there can be meaningful debate about the truth value of the claim. I don't think one can rely on "common sense" or "intuition" in science. These do vary between people anyway.

The case with the atmosphere is notably different. We've significantly increased the CO2 content, and there's a well understood mechanism by which CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation. So how exactly would increased CO2 *not* trap energy in our atmosphere? While the greenhouse effect is accepted science, it's futile to criticize it without saying what exactly makes you think it's false or unimportant.

Maybe the public climate discussion is dumbed-down a bit too much, but I'm quite convinced that the scientists are sufficiently researching all the other causes for climate change too. Let me point you to IPCC's scientific summary (pdf), pages 3 and 4. The table on page 4 does give values and error bars for many different causes of warming. It even summarises the level of scientific understanding behind each cause!

I think the IPCC summary is much better than many people think.

Not necessarily the smoking gun you're asking for, but the IPCC's own documentation is the root of this criticism; look on page 4, third paragraph :

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

This undoubtedly stems from Steve McIntyre's comments on the issue on ClimateAudit. The anti-AGWers (might be a little unfair to throw McIntyre in with the general crowd) generally take this comment to mean that "the working group will modify the data to support the conclusion", rather than the slightly more benign "the working group may modify the data to support the conclusion". However, at this point, the working group report has already been accepted, it's not like they start writing it from scratch after the SPM is published. Still, one can hardly argue that this clause is a positive thing for the perceived integrity of the science.

But the IPCC also addresses the question of how climate change will affect us (Working Group II "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"). See their website for a summary. They make it clear that the effects will be by and large very bad (if I can put it plainly). http://www.ipcc.ch/ So good and welcome comment from the meteorologist.

Here you go: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

Just because the values are not certain, or are based on climate models, does not mean they are "wild assed guesses".

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf

"Page 19 - There is a wide band of uncertainty as to the amount of uncertainty in the warming that would result from any stabilized greenhouse gase concentration"

The footnote says 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. That to me means wild ass guess. Models and data please!!

The warming of CO2 is actually relatively well established; what is uncertain is how much it is amplified by feedbacks.

What do you expect me to take this on faith? I wish someone would give me mathematical models backed up by historical data instead of "fairly well established".

The full Working Group I report (not just the Summary for Policymakers) has references to the literature.

I found it right over here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.II(E).pdf

Well let's see looked through it and it basically says that the temperature and the CO2 are rising over the last 300 years. Might as well be the decline in Pirates.

They're based on both instrumental and ice core data, among other sources. The ice core data is not the long-term Vostok data for ice ages you're referring to, but just over the last few centuries.

Well why not use the Vostok data? Oh I forgot it shows sharp and dramatic falls and increases in both CO2 and temperature (with CO2 slightly trailing temperature) which happen for no apparent reason. What if the temperature rising is causing increases in CO2? CO2 becoming less soluble in the oceans, less vegetation as deserts grow, etc.

Ok, what do you want to know?

Alright:
1. What explains the fall of CO2 and temperature simultaneously in the ice core data (with temperature leading slightly)?
2. If you notice at the end of the ice core data there is a very sharp rise in CO2 (Humans show up) but the temperature levels off.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

For me the ice core data is pretty convincing evidence that CO2 increases are not responsible for global warming. Again CO2 is increasing, temperature is increasing. CO2, at the amount present in the atmosphere is not contributing significantly to warming. If it was, temperature would follow CO2 in the ice cores not the other way around. The drops in temperature and CO2 following are also strange in the ice cores. That's real data.. 1000s of years not just the last 300.

Just because the values are not certain, or are based on climate models, does not mean they are "wild assed guesses".

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf

"Page 19 - There is a wide band of uncertainty as to the amount of uncertainty in the warming that would result from any stabilized greenhouse gase concentration"

The footnote says 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. That to me means wild ass guess. Models and data please!!

The warming of CO2 is actually relatively well established; what is uncertain is how much it is amplified by feedbacks.

What do you expect me to take this on faith? I wish someone would give me mathematical models backed up by historical data instead of "fairly well established".

The full Working Group I report (not just the Summary for Policymakers) has references to the literature.

I found it right over here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.II(E).pdf

Well let's see looked through it and it basically says that the temperature and the CO2 are rising over the last 300 years. Might as well be the decline in Pirates.

They're based on both instrumental and ice core data, among other sources. The ice core data is not the long-term Vostok data for ice ages you're referring to, but just over the last few centuries.

Well why not use the Vostok data? Oh I forgot it shows sharp and dramatic falls and increases in both CO2 and temperature (with CO2 slightly trailing temperature) which happen for no apparent reason. What if the temperature rising is causing increases in CO2? CO2 becoming less soluble in the oceans, less vegetation as deserts grow, etc.

Ok, what do you want to know?

Alright:
1. What explains the fall of CO2 and temperature simultaneously in the ice core data (with temperature leading slightly)?
2. If you notice at the end of the ice core data there is a very sharp rise in CO2 (Humans show up) but the temperature levels off.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

For me the ice core data is pretty convincing evidence that CO2 increases are not responsible for global warming. Again CO2 is increasing, temperature is increasing. CO2, at the amount present in the atmosphere is not contributing significantly to warming. If it was, temperature would follow CO2 in the ice cores not the other way around. The drops in temperature and CO2 following are also strange in the ice cores. That's real data.. 1000s of years not just the last 300.

http://www.ipcc.ch/
UN report on climate change

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (see Figure SPM.3). {3.2, 4.2, 5.5}
http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf (Summary for policy makers, report 1, Scientific Basis)

There's a couple of other reports on there too, including a mitigation report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/
UN report on climate change

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (see Figure SPM.3). {3.2, 4.2, 5.5}
http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf (Summary for policy makers, report 1, Scientific Basis)

There's a couple of other reports on there too, including a mitigation report.

... they can refer to scientific research.

Absolutely.

It's sad to read the short posts on Slashdot that glibly assert that anthropogenic climate change is untrue and/or a conspiracy.

The wikipedia article (and the IPPC reports http://www.ipcc.ch/ ) are good places to start to find out about the complex nature of this issue, and to see that there is a global scientific consensus (all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries agree) that there is a serious problem.

"I realize it's traditional for people defending global warming to do so without actual data"

Debunk this fucktard.

"You guys need a history lesson."

Since I grew up in the 60's and actually remeber the global cooling thing it's much more likely that you suffer from poor comprehension skills.

"Mount Saint Helens released more CO2 than humanity has in its entire existence"

Oh please, very few people here are that stupid. I can only assume that either you are an exception, or you are deliberately trolling.

Haven't enough people linked to the IPCC report already in this thread? If you seriously believe that global warming is a "natural cycle" caused by the sun, well, you simply haven't done your homework.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

See here: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf. The beauty of science is that it allows us to not only make predictions about the future, but to also know how likely is that the predictions will come to pass. Current science is saying that the change will hurt a lot. I haven't found anything that causes me to disagree with the summary paper and a lot that makes it very plausible, therefore I am endorsing its conclusions.

Simple stuff, really.

But fuck it, it's a Friday afternoon and I don't feel like digging up all the necessary smackdown data. Looks like I'm going with the goatse link anyway.

Goatse.cx

Or, at least, its functional equivalents to someone like stonecypher.

Darn, I meant to include a link to the IPCC Climate Change 2007 report. It's PDF, but only 1.3MB. It's intended for policy makers, so it uses smaller words, and explains it more than in a scientific journal. However, it liberally references the sources, and uses precise language.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Background on the working group(s) and the report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Pan el_on_Climate_Change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessmen t_Report

I'm not even going into the other effects described in the fourth 5-yearly IPCC climate change report.

Studies in temperate areas have shown that climate change is projected to bring some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure. Overall it is expected that these benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures world-wide, especially in developing countries.

Studies in temperate areas have shown that climate change is projected to bring some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure. Overall it is expected that these benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures world-wide, especially in developing countries.

"Because the skeptics have to prove an arguement, rather than the "Scientists" have to prove their findings beyond doubt....Sorry, buddy, I live in reality, where scientific claims have to be backed up with proof instead of mass acceptance"

You may "live in reality" but your mind shows no sign of such constraints.
To anyone formally/self educated in the philosophy and practice of science, your posts are simply demonstrating you do not know the meaning of the words "skepticisim" and "science" and seem clueless as to how they relate to each other, the inescapable conclusion is you do not have the skills to practice either. (Hint: Proof is for mathemeticians, and "mass acceptance" is an intergral part of the scientific method that leads to terms such as "science says...", "established science", ect. "The scientific method" == "formalised skepticisim")

After consulting a reputable dictionary and then spending the next decade or so learning what it is that you are trying to discredit, you may want to try debunking this conservative but well known body of evidence. If a decade is too long then talk to some of the scientists about SPECIFICS.

"50 years ago we were talking about global cooling....the most outlandish predictions talk about a change of 5 degrees...."

Also if you are going to paraphrase ancient "talking points" at least try and get the temprature and timeframe right. Your post is so wrong it's almost funny but the joke is ruined by the fact that a large chunk of the population would see nothing wrong with your line of reasoning and many more would unknowingly dishonour the memory of Sagan by calling you a "skeptic".

Attacking the messenger is valid when no one can think of three successes in 25 years.

I could quote areas where UN has suceeded (as I said, the UN works with more than peacekeeping issues), but it would just divert the issue and attract anti-UN trolls. Let me come up with a counter example: the UN is not the only player who has failed in the countries you mentioned. So has NATO, the US, the African Union, the EU... Should we discredit everything these agencies say? No, because they work with many other things too. The people working on the peacekeeping missions are NOT the same people working with The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. So again, what you are doing is ad-hominem.

Still, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if I keep chopping down trees that deforestation would occur.

Or that if we burn things that emit greenhouse gasses, the planet gets warmer...

Still, good examples, but nothing compared to the Global Warming scare tactics of today or the Ozone depletion

Oh, the Ozone "hole" is still there, it is just not mentioned often in the media these days. Ozone depletion didn't turn out quite as bad as some people warmed, BECAUSE WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Even some politicans, like Margaret Thatcher (who has a Chemistry degree from Oxford University), realised the dangers and helped drive through the Montrol agreement which caused a gradual reduction of manmade ozone destroying gases. The thinning is still there, but it is finally stabilizing and may slowly heal over decades. If you think the ozone whole was a myth, ask people in Australia about increased rates of skin cancer the last decades.

, global cooling

Myth, it was the popular press talking about it for a while, you did not have anything near the scientific conscencus we have on global warming today.

Fact is that the climate changes all the time. We have global cooling and enter ice ages and then we have global warming to get us out. Sometimes we cool form within an ice age and warm we are not in one. It's 100% natural.

No, it is not.

Besides, RTFA is about the possibility that the main source of heat in our solar system may be responsible for all this heat. Why is that such a far fetched idea?

Why is it such a far fetched idea that gases that trap heat locally (a process known to science since the 19th centruy), if released in sufficient quantities globally might have the same effect globally?

Those are examples from former leading environmentalists to show how wrong they've been in the past

Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. They are not the people presenting the data, it is scientists.

and to show their true agenda (the end of capitalism)

Also irrelevant. If someone has a political agenda, we might suspect that they slant or distort the data, then we check the data through a peer-review process.

From the flippin' IPCC summary (warning: PDF):

"Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability
or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the Framework Convention on Climate
Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human
activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate
variability observed over comparable time periods."

That doesn't acknowledge natural variability how?

How about:

"The Working Group I Fourth Assessment concluded that most of the observed increase in the
globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase
in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Note the word most. I think we can agree that the IPCC report is the current authoritative word on the subject of climate change, for better or worse (I'm not saying that it's right, just that it's primary reference). The IPCC does not claim that we are the sole cause of global warming.

No, "the problem" is people like yourself, you try to paint yourself as a critical thinker and a skeptic. You are neither, you lie and look for the answer that you want.

I'm sorry you see me as a heretic. I am not trying to destroy your religion or deny you the ability to practice it.

That being said, I need to point out that I am not saying these things, I am repeating them and others have said them. But it does bring up a critical point which might make me a critical thinker, Why is there such an effort to suppress any dissent? I think the answer is because either people have become brainwashed or are pushing the issue for reasons of gain. But I will address your accusations and sight some articles from this year. I'm sure you will do the same and cite articles from 3 years ago or maybe even 10 years ago that refute this information that was made available this year like normal. Cause thats what the "good book says" right?

Lie #1 - "Realclimate is untrustworthy".

Reality: RC is run by climatologists, many have contributed or peer-reviewed the IPCC reports, the founder is M.Mann (the hockey stick guy).

Yes, one of the most interesting one. The mann guy if hockey stick fame who's hockey stick has been shown inaccurate and refuted. I guess if you need you ten minutes of fame, your do anything. But back to the basics, It was started by some guy who became famous because of a graph of data that was prove to be inaccurate and who's work is being used by the UN IPCC who openly and freely admits their only job is to prove man is the problem.

A real stand-up sight. And If you look at this site, Pay attention to the articles. They address somethings that look like a real good job of explaining the irrelevance of new theories into global warming. I noticed that with situations like the sun, they reference articles that are 10 years old or better to discredit articles of today. This would be good if we knew for sure that the problem was 2+2=4. But we don't know this and the new theories specifically state these older beliefs are wrong. Now this is real science I guess, if we stop considering anything new in order to reject anything that disagrees with the agenda.

Lie #2 - "NASA doubts the findings of the IPCC".

Reality: James Hansen, is a world renowned climatologist and also the guy in charge of putting up the "unreliable sattelites", he has warned we may only have 10yrs to turn things around.

Yes, it would seem this is true, Hansen does say we only have ten year and he is in charge of them. And according to the source data the suns activity has been declining since 2003 when it went live. But more importantly, the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) which is part of the NASA material says that the temp increase caused by the sun is .2 degree C. Now this sounds familiar, Maybe is it because the IPCC claims the earth has warmed between .3 and .6 degrees C in about the same time. So that leaves .1 to .4 degrees C difference to account for. Well, maybe it is because there is a +- of about .4 degrees C rate of error in the IPCC numbers. Something else interesting is that the IPCC claims the highest temperatures in the last 100 years were from 1983 and above including the three hottest days in the 1990s. I think it is interesting in the least that this is being attributed to Co2 alone and not the Sun when the sun is though to have raised the temperature to within the margin of error of the reported temperature increases.

The IPCC and real climate isn't interested in any

This was the second of four reports. They are:
Working Group I "The Physical Science Basis" (Released 2 February)
Working Group II "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" (The one just out -- 4 April)
Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change" (Due 3 May)
The Synthesis Report (SYR) (Due 16 November)

See http://www.ipcc.ch/

The economics of making as early a start as possible are looked at quite closely at:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Independent_Reviews/ stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_ index.cfm

Industry will certain play some role in getting things moving. A good example would be "CEOs Ask Bush for Mandatory Emissions Caps" at:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/55321.html.

The insurance companies are certainly seeing this as important:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international /2007/04/06/78536.htm
There's a link from the above to a PDF hosted at Lloyds:
http://www.lloyds.com/NR/rdonlyres/FCA144E6-24D5-4 25E-B058-3A64E020E18F/0/360_RapidClimateChangeRepo rt.pdf

That's a 31 page PDF titled _Rapid Climate Change_. Major topic coverage:
    Rapid sea level rise
    By Professor David Smith

    Destabilisation of parts of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet
    By Dr Stephan Harrison

    Increased frequency and intensity of floods
    By Dr Matt Wilson

    Climate variability and changes in global drought intensity and frequency
    By Dr Richard Washington

http://www.ipcc.ch/

low-rent keyboard

An anecdote -- which is not data. (And I just googled and couldn't find a cite for this, though ISTR it was in the LA Times that I read this.) Post-Katrina regulations for rebuilding in those areas mandate a three foot elevated foundation pile, ie the ground floor must be at least three feet above ground level.

This regulation is being cited - apparently credibly - as one factor, amongst many, that is inhibiting rebuilding and resettlement of the worst hit areas.

I'm not a civil engineer, but I get to read the "New Civil Engineer" and it's often fascinating stuff. Coastal management in the UK is now about "managed withdrawal" -- reflooding low-lying and reclaimed marsh areas, and allowing eroding coastlines to continue eroding rather than trying to protect them with seawalls, dikes and other traditional flood defences. This is a big, big, big deal: for starters, property owners who have just found that their area is now being effectively abandoned to the sea will not be getting any insurance or compensation.

I'm glad my house is on top of a hill, 200' above (but only half a mile from) the nearest river. On my daily commute I pass extensive modern housing estates built on what are obviously flood plains (this is in the Severn Valley in the west of the UK.) We're all doomed...

Another good intro if you live in California, is Our Changing Climate - Assessing the Risk to California. This summary (based on very credible science) shows, among other things, scenarios where we'll lose 90% of the snowpack in the Sierras.

We can't seriously believe either side, but must stick to logic and examine all the facts. Both sides have their hysterical evangelists and paid shills.

How does stuff like this get modded insightful? If you are an intelligent person and are interested in the issue, then don't believe either "side," least of all any "paid shills." Go and read what the science has to say, which you will find is somewhat different to most of what you see in the media, although rather closer to one "side" than the other. If finding and thumbing through the last few years' research in the several dozen most relevant scientific journals is a bit much work, then the third assessment report of the IPCC is well worth a read as a comprehensive review of available research as things stood a few years back:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

..and for those who balk at hundreds of pages of scientific review or want to know what has changed since the third assesment report, the "summary for policymakers" is now available for the fourth assesment report, although the actual report is yet to be released:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Yes, there are a handful of scientists in the field who might say the IPCC reports overstate the existence, extent or cause of ongoing climate change. But they'd be substantially outnumbered by those who'd say the IPCC understates the case. Irrespective of this, it is simply not possible to hold an informed position in the climate "debate" being conducted by Hollywood and the media unless you have at the very least read the IPCC summary for policymakers.

We can't seriously believe either side, but must stick to logic and examine all the facts. Both sides have their hysterical evangelists and paid shills.

How does stuff like this get modded insightful? If you are an intelligent person and are interested in the issue, then don't believe either "side," least of all any "paid shills." Go and read what the science has to say, which you will find is somewhat different to most of what you see in the media, although rather closer to one "side" than the other. If finding and thumbing through the last few years' research in the several dozen most relevant scientific journals is a bit much work, then the third assessment report of the IPCC is well worth a read as a comprehensive review of available research as things stood a few years back:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

..and for those who balk at hundreds of pages of scientific review or want to know what has changed since the third assesment report, the "summary for policymakers" is now available for the fourth assesment report, although the actual report is yet to be released:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Yes, there are a handful of scientists in the field who might say the IPCC reports overstate the existence, extent or cause of ongoing climate change. But they'd be substantially outnumbered by those who'd say the IPCC understates the case. Irrespective of this, it is simply not possible to hold an informed position in the climate "debate" being conducted by Hollywood and the media unless you have at the very least read the IPCC summary for policymakers.

It's a panel compromised of thousands of scientists. You can read about their findings, and if you are not convinced, then read about the methdology to get a picture of whether you believe the research has been carried out in a sound scientific manner.

I recommend you to make your decision soon, though - we are running out of time. Fast.

Wrong.
Most scientists (as far as I can tell, and leaving out the Al Gores and Michael Crichton's) seem to agree that the globe is warming.
Many of them believe that humans are contributing, mainly to an acceleration of a natural increase.

OK, you seem like a reasonable person, so I'll try to sell it.

So let's get the facts out of the way: Instead of quoting lots of sources, all of which would of couse be suspect to one degree or another due to funding, politics, etc. Just have a look at http://www.ipcc.ch/ That's about the strongest scientific consensus you're ever going to see. About anything. You probably couldn't get as many scientists to agree about the gravitational constant.

Now to consequences. Yes, the world won't end. It's just going to get more unpleasant, and more expensive. Have a look at the report. Look at the rainfall predictions. Those poorer countries you see with lower rainfall are going to have more drought and people in those specific areas will die without massive aid. How's that aid thing been working out for the drought regions in Africa lately? Yes, yes, if the goverments there could all just get along, etc....

Can anyone say exactly when and which exact areas will be affected? No. Can anyone say exaclty which people will die if we legalize drunk driving? No. But neither is a good argument. The scientific fact, with as much scientific certainty as say... evolution *gasp*.... is that it will happen.

You have focused on ocean levels, but that's really a minor point compared to other affects, such as the threat to the North Atlactic current, but let's have a look. For your strawman of 10cm, I think what you've said is fairly accurate. But that's the low end of the IPCCs estimates for the next 100 years, with 88cm being the high, and no end in sight until we do something, and even then we won't see the levels stabilize for centuries after temperatures do. What do *you* think will happen with a 1m rise in the highest of the high tides? I'd say, for example, about 10% of Manhattan will flood 5-10 times a century unless massive dikes are built. There's 50 billion dollars down the drain on a tiny example.

And that's really the point. What do we (in the US) have to gain by ignoring the problem? A hundred billion per year or so in GDP on the high side: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/cost.html
What do we stand to lose? That's a tougher number to estimate. Honestly, in the near term, say under 100 years, we won't approach that 100 billion number in the US. Other, more equatorial countries will, but we won't. In the longer run, though, it will catch up with us, and by then we will have wiped out thousands of species and hundreds of entire ecosystems. All of this is in the IPCC report. Have a look.

I look forward to your paper in Nature explaining which climate forcings Chart SPM-2 (p4 of the PDF) has missed out, or miscalculated. Perhaps you contest the errorbars?

Please show your working.