Consensus on Global Warming

FredFnord writes "Well, here's an interesting one: the fine folks at Science Magazine have done an analysis of the last ten years' published scientific articles (articles from crank or non-peer-reviewed publications were not counted) on the subject of global climate change. The results themselves are interesting, but the most remarkable part was that, of the 928 papers they found, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. And not a single paper asserted otherwise." JamesBell submits this article by a geologist which suggests that the Earth is in serious, imminent, unavoidable danger.

Comments

Predications

[stecoop]

So Should I be Running climate prediction.net on my P4 Prescott or not?

Re:Predications

[tolan-b]

No because the heat generated by the Prescott's core far outweighs the benefits to the research ;)

Like it matters ...

[Draoi]

... as Dubya probably doesn't read Science Magazine and won't be signing the Kyoto protocol any time soon. So, while the US government recognises the seriousness of global warming, they refuse to do anything about it as they claim it to be 'unfair'. Unfair is one nation producing over 25% of global CO2 emissions ... :-/

(BTW, that 'fine fellow' at Science Magazine happens to be a woman :-))

Re:Like it matters ...

[Wateshay]

Show me some hard numbers that show the Kyoto treaty will do anything significant, other than redistribute wealth around the world and then we'll talk.

Re:Like it matters ...

[raider_red]

You mean the treaty that Clinton wouldn't even submit for ratification by the Senate? And about which the Senate passed a resolution 95-0 stating that they would not ratify if it was submitted?

Re:Like it matters ...

[Scarblac]

I agree with you that Kyoto will probably not do all that much; however, it is a start. The point of Kyoto is that it is intended to lead to a stricter treaty after Kyoto's goals have been met in 2010 (fat chance, but anything is better than nothing).

Of course, if the US wants to propose a much stricter treaty that will cut back their output to something more in line with what the rest of the world does per capita so that actually might be significant, the rest of the world would welcome that!

That said, I guess I mostly agree with the second FA, which explains that we're mostly fucked, probably within our lifetime.

Re:Like it matters ...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You mean apart from the fact that "redistribution of wealth" is usually a euphemism for institutionalized larceny, an offense which is rejected out of hand by every legal, ethical and moral tradition we have?

Nothin'. Nothin' at all.

Re:Like it matters ...

[e_lehman]

The 95-0 vote was in 1997. In a 2003 vote on emissions reductions, the vote was 55-43. Attitudes are changing.

Furthermore, a major objection to Kyoto was that it does not require emissions reductions from third-world countries. However, the major third-world producer of CO2-- China-- has been steadily reducing it's emissions anyway. So that argument isn't so compelling anymore. (Then again, they're at 1/8 the US level per capita anyway...)

Re:Like it matters ...

[Yokaze]

Except on that matter the FA is plain wrong: There is no statistical correlation between the GDP growth (economic growth) and CO2 emissions.

Contrary to your statement, the author suggested that the economical value of wind farms is debateable. But so is the economical value of pyramids. But on that matter, I refer you to Lord Keynes.

Great

[daveschroeder]

Soon, it will be China and India that you're pointing fingers at, and not the US (or Europe).[1]

So... Then what?

And uh, is this news? Does anyone credible seriously disagree that emissions from human activity are at least in part contributing factors? Or is this another jab at boogiemen that don't exist? There's nothing "remarkable" about these so-called findings.

Also, the "Earth" isn't in danger. Yes, I know this distinction is splitting hairs, but what's in danger is Earth's inhabitants. Our actions are not going to alter a several billion year old rock.

[1] Don't feed me the per capita shit. China will be a far, far greater polluter in this realm, per capita or no. Further, the economic empowerment of the Chinese people will eventually drive them to a level of concern about the well-being of the environment, so, in a way, their accelerated economic development is a good thing, politically and environmentally. Incidentally, China has proven they can reduce greenhouse emissions, even while growing economically (1, 2)...but the point is, they're still on an upward trend. And they've got a lot more people who will begin to thirst for energy-hungry luxuries.

Re:Great

[eln]

Screaming about how things are "not fair" is just an excuse to keep from doing anything at all. The Bush Administration rejects the Kyoto protocols, whether for good reasons or not, and then refuses to do anything else about global warming. We can't simply refuse to do anything because the one proposed solution is not fair. As one of the world's most advanced nations, it's our responsibility to do everything within our power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, starting in our own country. Once we have a plan in place to reduce our own problems, then we can go out and try to reform the solutions that other people have come up with. Instead, we're pointing fingers, and refusing ANY solutions because the ONE solution that has been presented to us by the rest of the globe is seen as "unfair".

Also, as people love to point out so much in political flamewars, pointing to someone else and saying "they're doing it too" is not a reasonable justification to continue doing the wrong thing.

Re:Great

[wwest4]

> Soon, it will be China and India that you're pointing fingers at, and not the US
> (or Europe).[1]

The US isn't being unfairly singled out in any of the articles posted.

> There's nothing "remarkable" about these so-called findings. ...
> what's in danger is Earth's inhabitants.

What is unremarkable about that?

The idea that China and India (and other major greenhouse contributors) should be brought to task is fine. As a US citizen, however, I am primarily concerned with what my country can do to help, not in deflecting blame. Surely, we would be in a better position to apply pressure to other countries in this regard, were we at the forefront of C02 emmissions reduction?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush Administration rejects the Kyoto protocols

True. But even if Bush were all over Kyoto, Congress would never ratify it. It's a non-starter. If you can sell it to Congress, then maybe you can finger-point at Bush.

As one of the world's most advanced nations, it's our responsibility to do everything within our power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, starting in our own country.

Great! Let's start building the nuclear power plants now. And let's fund development of hydrogen as an infrastructure fuel for cars and such.

Oh, wow! By extreme coincidence, the Bush administration is in favor of both of those things.

Given your position on Kyoto, I assume you are in favor as well? If not, start 'splainin'.

Re:Great

[danheskett]

Taking arguments to an extreme is a classical logical fallacy intended to discredit other peoples' arguments. It's also a trick of simple minds. You and I both know he wasn't saying anything like that. Don't be an idiot.
The point was and remains that we can do anything from nothing to a very lot, yet everyone who clamours for "something to be done" is unwilling to specify at what cost. Kyoto was so vicious to the US economic outlook that the president whose vice-president negogiated the treaty wouldn't even let it come to vote. There wasn't a siggle sitting senator - even amoung the left leaning ones - who'd agree to support it even in a non-binding way.

So the question remains: how much are the "clamouring" types willing to pay? 1Million jobs? 2Million? 5M? 10M? 15% of GDP?

That's the real question.

Re:Great

[eln]

Again, we are too quick to assume that any change will result in massive job loss, and so we don't make the effort to find ways to reduce emissions without significantly impacting the economy. We can encourage corporations to change over time through tax incentives, and phased-in mandates. There is no reason at all to say the only way to do this is to mandate unrealistic things, that's just a scare tactic to keep anything from being done. Most corporations will not modernize by themselves, or at least will do so only very slowly. Through the use of tax credits and other incentives, including phased-in mandates, we can push corporations to modernize earlier, which will put them on cleaner and, usually, more efficient modern equipment, which would represent a net gain for the economy in terms of productivity.

The "pollution credit" system is a way to encourage companies that are in a position to modernize now to do so, and a way to encourage companies that are not in such a position to get in that position as early as possible. Maybe Kyoto implemented it poorly, but the idea is still sound as far as a method of reducing overall emissions without unduly hurting the economy, and in fact improving the economy over the long run.

Re:Great

[Martin Blank]

The Bush Administration rejects the Kyoto protocols, whether for good reasons or not, and then refuses to do anything else about global warming. We can't simply refuse to do anything because the one proposed solution is not fair. As one of the world's most advanced nations, it's our responsibility to do everything within our power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, starting in our own country.

Please help in getting the hardcore greens and the NIMBYs to stop filing lawsuits blocking construction of nuclear reactors. That will go a long way towards reducing the CO2 output of the US. The combustion of coal, oil, and methane in electricity production in the US in 2002 released 2,249 million tons of CO2, not to mention the various other things that are released (particularly by coal) like sulfur dioxides, NOx gases, and of course thorium and uranium. I know the filter technology does a pretty decent job of things, but some of this stuff still gets out. Total US CO2 output in 2002 was 5796 million tons -- meaning 39% of our output is from the electrical sector alone.

Imagine what the world reaction would be if in, say, 20 years, we managed to cut our output by 25% or more just by switching off of combustibles. We might even be able to do a lot more if we could get natural gas heating to be more expensive than electrical heating (it's quite the reverse at the moment, though with natural gas becoming so popular, it might change soon on its own). I'm still undecided on global warming, as the evidence may be there but the most reliable evidence is still relatively short-term and weather systems have patterns of their own that can really screw with observations. But I figure that there are other issues -- like pollution of rivers and streams, as well as various political nightmares -- that might be solved by switching so much of our infrastructure over to fuels we can find domestically.

Official EPA Global Warming Site

[the_mighty_$]

The official EPA Global Warming website is located at: www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

Global Warming on Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest
By SPACE.com
posted: 03:00 pm ET
08 December 2003

Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.

full story at http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html

Re:Global Warming on Mars

[mrn121]

Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.

See, that's what happens when we start putting vehicles on Mars, too. That thing isn't aerosol powered, is it?

Re:Global Warming on Mars

[FatRatBastard]

This made me think of Michael Crichton's Aliens Cause Global Warming" speech, which is actually quite apropos since he took on the idea of scientific "consensus:"

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on. Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Re:Global Warming on Mars

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The Crichton canard gets pulled out every time global warming is mentioned. There are so many things wrong with it that it's hard to know where to start tearing it apart, but I'll point out one of the obvious ones right away: Michael Crichton, himself, has almost surely never done the experiments to show that E=mc^2, or that the sun is 93 million miles away, or that malnutrition causes pellagra. So why does he believe these things?

(wait for it)

Because that's what the consensus tells him.

Re:Global Warming on Mars

[kellman]

But what he is talking about is scientific assumptions not based on scientific evidence or where the evidence is insufficient to prove any point at all.

Many other people have done Einstein's equations and arrived at the same result. Many other people have measured the distance to the sun and arrived at the same conclusion.

People were dismissing pellagra as being related to malnutrition, yet they were not using the scientific method to dispute Goldberger, just their guess that it must be a germ. Not only that but even worse, they were prejudiced that it must be a germ because they didn't want to have to make social changes for some medical epidemic.

Same as today where the scientists are saying "It must be the humans!" because humans are Bad for the Earth(tm) when there is not near enough evidence to in any way conclusively state that.

"Because that's what the consensus tells him."
And what has the consensus told you?

Interesting article...

[Jhon]

75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities

Ok. How many of those actually attempted to show a LINK between global warming and human activities rather than just "accept" it?

Regardless, the final paragraph of the article begs a very interesting question:

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

The begged question is Will it be bad or will it be good? Wouldn't warmer climates provide more arable land? What I get out of this is "We dont know what it means, but it looks like at least SOME climate changes are caused by man".

Re:Interesting article...

[EnderWiggnz]

What I get out of this is "We dont know what it means, but it looks like at least SOME climate changes are caused by man".

and SOME studies suggest that cigarettes cause health problems.

some.

Re:Interesting article...

[Jhon]

Funny that, but many of the things I've seen seem to indicate that if the ENTIRE polar ice caps melted, we'd see a rise of about 65 meters, not 200 meters. And that's if the ENTIRE cap melted -- I dont think anyone is suggest that possibility.

Maybe you just mixed up meters and feet? Your point is valid, however -- even 20 ft would be bad.

But would that happen? Global warming doesn't necessarily mean the polar ice cap will melt. The really interesting questions arise when we see the change in ocean salinity...

I found the truth!

[lucabrasi999]

From the article:

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysica Union? What a bunch of communists. They are just trying to destroy our way of life. They don't want me to live my life the way I want. Now, where did I park my Ford Explorer? I gotta run and buy a pack of smokes...

Sadly, this isn't going to change anything.

[gargonia]

I think the reason this is news is because the Bush administration is still trying to pretend that this is not proven science... that it's just a theory that can be ignored. They want to ignore it because it's inconvenient for their business cronies, and those business cronies fund party activities and candidates' re-elections. I don't think there will be any changes on this front until this administration is out of office, no matter how much evidence is presented. It's quite unfortunate.

Re:Sadly, this isn't going to change anything.

[Orne]

That's funny, because I look at this as news that the mass media is pretending that it is proven science... Read the details, 100% of the articles did not mention that global warming could be produced from valid geological / astrophysical events... temporary increase in the sun's energy output, recent random volcanic activity, you know, the kind of alternative sources that can easily be found in a google search...

I am not saying that human industrial pollution is not a contributor towards global warming, I just find it interesting that so many people think that it is the only contributor...

Re:Sadly, this isn't going to change anything.

[anthony_dipierro]

I think the reason this is news is because the Bush administration is still trying to pretend that this is not proven science...

I think we should take a look at exactly what is proven science...

"In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities." Of course Earth's climate is being affected by human activities. No one, including the Bush administration, denies that.

"Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point." But even if you say that everyone in those selected papers believes that climate change is due to man, it still doesn't get to the heart of the matter: what is the effect of global warming, is there anything we can do to stop it? And of course, the most important, and non-scientific, but political question, is it worth it?

Serious, imminent, unavoidable danger?

[Dystopian Rebel]

Oh come now, you panicky Chicken Littles in lab coats!

We can just hide in our SUVs. They have heated seats.

Tobacco

[bombadillo]

The Global Warming issue reminds me of big Tobacco. Deny , Deny , Deny. Years from now their will be no doubt that our habbits accelerated Global warming.

It does matter

[daveschroeder]

And the US supports the principles of Kyoto, but does NOT support the exemption of countries termed "developing", like China.

Re:It does matter

[Anonymous Coward]

China has signed the treaty and is expected to become an Annex 1 country before 2015. Since the United States wouldn't be required to meet polution reduction deadlines until 2010, it wouldn't leave much time that China would be free from the same regulations as the United States. China really isn't a good excuse anymore...

What about rejects?

[ajs]

How many were rejected from the peer review process which suggested or concluded otherwise? More to the point (and obviously, this cannot be known) how many were never submitted for peer review in the first place because of concern over the backlash?

Most US science funding in climate and solar research comes from the federal govt (in geological and oceanic research sizable amounts can come from private groups). When politicians don't want to look like they're anti-environment they screen funding to make sure it's not going to go to "enemies of the planet" (I kid you not, that's the phrase).

How can a survey of peer reviewed journals be a valid source of data when people are afraid to publish "the wrong results"?

Perhaps global warming is caused by adult white male toenail clippings, but I'm pretty sure we have no reasonable way of finding that out right now.

Re:What about rejects?

[Garse Janacek]

Okay, this shows such a poor understanding of the concept of a peer reviewed journal that I'm not even sure how to respond.

For starters, how many papers were rejected from the peer review process is almost entirely irrelevant. The peer review process is in place for a reason, and the reason is to ensure that bad science (not politically unpleasant conclusions) are not published in major journals. Unless you have a strong reason to believe that most peer reviewers have a strong personal stake in suppressing legitimate research because they don't like the conclusions, then this objection is bunk. We aren't talking about a 60-40 split on a controversial subject -- no papers that contradicted human involvement in global warming made it through the process. What possible benefit would it be to any of those reviewers to suppress opposing opinions? They have no personal stake one way or the other, except arguably their reputations, and that presupposes that there is not a single scientist that has done enough legitimate research to be a peer reviewer and yet still thinks global warming isn't a human issue (or at most, no more than a handful) -- a strong argument for thinking global warming is a significant issue, as far as I'm concerned.

You also rant about how these papers are only published because people don't want to lose funding by being perceived as anti-environment. It seems fairly evident that the current government establishment would be most served by producing strong evidence that global warming is not a serious issue -- so why would it be more politically safe to contradict the notion that things are okay, and question the status quo? If people wanted "safe" conclusions to ensure their funding, they would be saying that global warming is no big deal. Furthermore, you seem to be implying that no funding exists for the production of honest results. Again, this isn't a 60-40 split -- if anyone, even a single person, has ever received funding to do legitimate research on this subject, and has come up with findings against human involvement, it has not been able to make it through a peer review, which probably means that it used questionable methods or was otherwise flawed. Peer reviewers are not as politically motivated as you seem to suppose.

How can a survey of peer reviewed journals be a valid source of data when people are afraid to publish "the wrong results"?

A valid question, but one that is entirely irrelevant until you have shown that this fear actually exists.

Another danger of Global Warming...

[Saeger]

...is being suckered into accepting the neutral "Climate Change" euphemism, which downplays its significance. I wonder who started that trend?...Hmm...

Finally a solution

[Wateshay]

A solution from the last link:

a large-scale switch to civil nuclear power. This has the benefit of being proven technology. We are aware of the problems, and current public unpopularity of this route, but we consider the dangers posed by global warming to be orders of magnitude greater than those likely to be caused by the controlled use of nuclear power. This energy source, additionally, could lie at the heart of future hydrogen-based transport systems.

Now, there's a solution I can get behind (no, I'm not joking). Nuclear energy, pursued with a strong eye towards safety and security, would be a step forward in terms of our efficiency and use of energy.

Bankrupting the industrialized nations of the world for an unproven solution isn't.

Re:Supporting the Environment & China

[mirko]

Do not speculate : USA is currently the biggest polluter, whether others will become worse soon is another story, what we want is the US to show an example and make radical progresses towards making the Earth a better planet to give our children.

In Switzerland, where I live, they developed recycling, public transportation and also motivated people to make more sport, use their bikes whenever possible... walk instead of taking their big greasy trucks to the mall, the result is a better environment aware society.

Re:I'll be dead...

[Reducer2001]

Yee-haw! That's the attitude I like, boy. I've got a cabient position open for ya, if you're interested. I love reading posts like these on the internets.
GWB

The rest of the story

[radinator]

"Unfair is one nation producing over 25% of global CO2 emissions ..."

"...and produce 31% of the worlds output." Conveniently, you forgot this part. Seems a common oversight.

Re:The rest of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

"...and then consume that output." Funny how those who are so eager to "correct" this mistake never notice their own.

Seems a far more common and far more damaging oversight, eh? In fact, it's so common that one would almost think that this oversight is a deliberate untruth propogated for rhetorical purpose.

"Blame Bush" fails again

[kippy]

The Bush Administration rejects the Kyoto protocols, whether for good reasons or not, and then refuses to do anything else about global warming.

Bullshit.

14 Nations to Participate in Plan to Reduce Methane

This is largely driven by the US and it includes India and China. It'll have the same greenhouse effect as removing 7% of US fleet of cars from the road and it costs next to nothing.

Just because Bush doesn't sign up to a program with name recognition, doesn't mean the US government isn't doing anything.

So what's the news here?

[Alwin Henseler]

From the article summary: ".. of the 928 papers they found, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. And not a single paper asserted otherwise."

Just because everybody is saying it, doesn't make it true.

But okay, I'm the last person to deny global warming is upon us. Other than some US folks still not convinced or thinking it's not that big a problem (or simply putting their head in the sand), global warming is observed, and the only question is about how much of it is the result of human activities, and how much by natural causes. Oh yeah, and what to do about it.

For the rest: nothing to see here.

Re:So what's the news here?

[Frymaster]

I still say that reguardless of global warming it is better to continue on and deal with problems as they arise

so the solution is to deal with the symptoms rather than address the cause?

If we throw away our technology, as some would seem to prefer

slow down, there! it's a bit of a leap to conclude that those who advocate a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gasses are calling for us to "throw away our technology".

a hundred and twenty years ago, all the western world's major cities had a horse poop problem. lots of horses in the streets, lots of poop. how was this addressed? by "throwing away" the technology of horses? no. the solution was technological improvement rather than regression.

now we just have to deal with the car poop.

climate change is a better phrase

[dankelley]

The phrase is not a euphemism. It's a recognition of the fact that we care about more than just global averages and we care about more than temperature.

The world-averaged temperature could remain unchanged by cooling some regions and warming others, and both things could be difficult in terms of crop adjustment, etc. And there is a lot of concern about water as well as heat; think drought.

The expanded phrase also includes the "climate of weather", i.e. the slowly varying statistics of the quickly varying fields. For example, we ask whether the weather would be more stormy in the future.

I've never heard it said that climate change is a euphemism ... to folks like me who work in this field, it's a more encompassing phrase.

Lies

[daveschroeder]

Bush didn't "pull out of" anything. Why YOUR revisionist history, Anonymous Coward?

The US is a Kyoto signatory, but "On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification."

All of this happened under Clinton.

So, sorry, but your bullshit post is just that.

Re:Lies

[dubl-u]

I don't have much time for the AC's reflexive Bush-bashing, but the picture you paint doesn't seem to be any less one-sided.

From my understanding of it, the US did pretty much disengage from the process, so although they didn't technically pull out of the treaty, they certainly have withdrawn from the process of dealing with global carbon emissions. And there's no denying that Bush welched on his campaign promise to do something about it.

And I think there's an important difference with Clinton's actions: the main post points out, we're six years further along with the science of it. The room for reasonable doubt has greadly shrunk, and we've got six more years of excess CO2 emissions to clean up now.

Re:Lies

[dubl-u]

There is no reason to sign the treaty.

Aside from impending climate change, of course.

There are countries who are largely hardly even bound by it (China)

China just recently joined the WTO, but that doesn't mean we should have waited for them. If we want to be a global leader, a good way to do it would be by leading.

and it would put our sovreignty in jeapardy. [sic]

Sorry, I missed the provision of the treaty where it said that the carbon police could annex territory or replace the president if we didn't cut emissions. Could you point that part out to me?

Besides, through our own regulation we've already cut our emissions by half since about 1972.

Based on what data? Government data says there's been a 25% rise from 1972 to 2000. And as far as I know, there are no CO2 emissions regulations in the US yet. Could you point us at them?

Glad you're not a scientist

[WebCowboy]

Well, I HOPE you aren't anyways.

Yes, groupthinking like 2+2=4 and the earth is round, is just sooo bad.

How are mathematical statements and established facts groupthink? Groupthink is belief in an opinion or hypothesis because it is the most popular one. There is consensus based on scientific observation of climate data that global temperatures are rising along with atomspheric CO2 levels. There is actual evidence of this.

The evidence pointing to the CAUSE of global warming isn't so solid. All we know for sure is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are heating up the planet. The impact of human activity on CO2 levels may be negligable for all we konw. One major volcanic eruption, for example, can pump out more climate-altering emissions in days than all of humanity could do for years. The observations in this article do not present any evidence at all, they just demonstrate that scientists who write papers happen to have come to a consensus that human CO2 emissions have an impact on global warming. Being there is not SOLID, DIRECT proof of that one might say it is "group think"...scientists have succumbed to "group think " before...

The article itself makes a good statement:

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Science isn't always right. One thing is for sure though, reducing CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels might not stop global warming for sure, but it certainly can't make the problem worse. And besides that, it is probalby wise to conserve the worlds biggest NON-renewable resource, much of which happens to be unfortunately located in politically unstable countries where mentally unstable terrorists like to hide.

Re:Bah...

[nomadic]

It is still surprising to me that only 1 in 4 bothered to include alternative polution sources...

Because they're professional geologists, so that goes without saying? These are peer-reviewed scientific journals, not introductory textbooks. If a physician writes an article claiming some chemical causes cancer, is he going to also mention everything else causes cancer? Is he going to mention the sun also causes cancer? Of course not, because he most likely is not a complete and utter moron, and he assumes his readers aren't either.

Find me a single geologist anywhere who has ever publicly stated that anthropogenic sources are the only things that cause global climate change.

Re:Cranks

[Rasvar]

Of course, 600 years ago a "peer review" would call you a crank for saying the world was round.

There is human influence on the climate. The harder question to answer is to what degree and how fast? Most of the global simulations have some pretty fatal flaws. Some do not account for the oceans ability to hold heat very well. Others do not take into account how changing currents in the deep levels of the oceans will affect upper currents. Heck, the GFS[NOAA's main forecast model] had a 30 degree miss on the weather in New England this past weekend three days out. Computer modeling is not the be all end all.

This is not to say that nothing needs to be done. I think there is a bit of Chicken Little in the research community. Especially the ones who know that fear brings them more funding.

Some have stated Kyoto was a "start." In international treaties, there are no such things as starts. Once you get a bad treaty, you tend to be stuck with the damn thign forever because the other countries feel like they did what they needed to do. That is politics. You can not accept a bad treaty like Kyoto. It had major flaws and would have been a band aide on a monster gash.

Is the administration doing enough, hell no? However, Kyoto flat out sucked as a treaty goes. It had been rendered as nothing but a way for third world countries to make money by selling their pollution rights. It was full BS.

Re:Supporting the Environment & China

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down, it's ridiculous. The United States is a largest per capita generator of greenhouse gases by an enormous margin...to the extent that even though China has 4x as many people as the U.S., they still have lower total emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, per capita carbon emissions in North America (includes Mexico and Canada, and the U.S.) were 4.7 tons in 1997; in China the per capita emissions were 0.73 tons. No, that's not a typo, in North America we generate 4.7 tons of carbon emissions per person, per year.

help! This means you...

[Cally]

I've been getting gincreasingly despondent reading climate change stories on Slashdot over the last few years, seeing well-established science ridiculed and ignored by people apparently intelligent enough to know better. In particular I see the same tired old straw man arguments, deliberate canards, propaganda, misinterpretion and plain ol' ignorance trotted out again and again. No doubt the comments here are full of the same nonsense - see below for my working list of tired attempts to refute rationality.

After the most recent Slashdot story I actually steeled myself to do something about it. I re-read the whole story at Threshold 2 to gather UIDs of people who might help. The idea is to build a list of myths and authoritative answers to them. For example, the old line that the sun's getting hotter, and that this explains global warming, comes up over & over again. Many, very patient! and knowledgable people posted to that story with excellent refutations of such nonsense.

I'm going to put my plaintext mail address in this comment, that's how serious I am about this! You can even help if you believe that Climate Change is hippie nonsense trotted out by pseudo scientists who just want more funding!!

What I am looking for:

• A list of skeptical objections to the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are changing the climate, and that this is a bad thing. I don't really mind how loopy or paraniod your objections are: whatever reason you use to claim that it's nonsense, let me know so I can add it to the list.
• More importantly - people who can help prepare authoritative, rational refutations of these assertions.

If you have violent objections to the idea that global warming is a bad thing, please email me at the address below describing why you think this. As you will see if you hit 'see the rest of this comment', the existing list - which were collected from a single Slashdot story - is already pretty long, so this isn't so vital.

If you can help knock down such gibberish- if you have posted with a calm, well-argued and ideally knowledgable or carefully referenced refutation of a wild claim - please email me and make yourself known; I will get in touch in the next few days.

If you want to subscribe me to lots of spam lists, don't bother; Gmail are very good at spam filtering, you'll get yourself blacklisted when I hit 'report spam' and you won't be helping your cause one little bit.

If you can help, mail me at:

username: imipak; domain (at): gmail.com

Here's the list I collected from the last Slashdot climate change story, only a few days ago, about "why anthropogenic climate change is a myth". Read it and weep.

• We only have temperature records for the last few hundred years.
• The sun is getting hotter.
• Climate change == global warming - great! It's too cold where I am!
• Climate change is pseudo-science
• Climate change is just a theory - we should wait until it's proven before taking action
• Climate scientists deliberately falsify and/or manufacture fake data to support the theory, because otherwise they wouldn't get grants for further research.
• Climate science is skewed by unconcious assumptions that climate change is anthropomorphic
• Climate change is a conspiracy by the UN or the French or Europeans or Chinese to hurt the USA
• Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans (several variants on this one - eg more than all humans ever, this year, etc)
• For every scientist who predicts global warming doom and gloom, you will find as many who say that it isn't happening, or that human activity isn't a significant factor.
• we are barely 10,000 years out of our last one, and may still be warming FROM it? 10,000 years are mere seconds in geologic time.
• the Earth has sustained worse temperature fluxations. (variants: in human history / last 10,000 years / lifetime of the planet)
• Cows produce methane!

Re:help! This means you...

[kilpo1]

Has the Northern Hemisphere been warming for at least the last 100 years? No question. But I would suggest that what is important is the *rate* of change -- the delta. Also important is the question: "How warm is warm?"
Let me explain.
Circa 900 AD or so, Eric the Red was tossed out of Iceland (he and his bunch were a tad too rowdy for the Norse already there) and began settling what was known as Greenland in the last century. At one time I used to think that Eric and his son Lief ran not only the first but arguably the greatest real estate scam in recorded history. But I was wrong. For nearly 200 years Norse settlements dotted the coasts of Greenland, some of them more than 100 miles *north* of the Arctic Circle. These Norse settlers were not fishermen; they were farmers and survived by growing wheat! Hard as it may be to believe, but 1000 years ago the coasts of Greenland were indeed green.

So question Number One: How much warmer does it have to get before wheat can be grown and harvested on the west coast of Greenland north of the Arctic Circle?

Sometime after 1100 AD these settlements were abandoned as the climate began to turn colder. By 1350 Europe was in the middle of a "mini-ice age." It was still plenty damn cold when Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

Question Number Two: What was the rate of change as Europe cooled down from 1000 AD to 1350 AD? Is that delta smaller or larger than the one we are now experiencing?

I would posit that if the delta of climatic change today is not significantly (in its statistical sense) greater than it was from 1000 AD - 1350 AD, then it is hard to argue that human activity is the *primary* cause of the change. After all, the current warming trend has been going on for more than 100 years now and I think we still have a ways to go before farmers are planting wheat at Godthab or Holsteinborg on the west coast of Greenland.

Don't blame the messengers for the bad news...

[mulescent]

Usually, I stay out of Slashdot discussions on pseudo-religious scientific topics, but the comments I have read so far demand a reply. Unfortunately, many /. posters seem to forget that scientists are highly trained human beings whose job it is to answer questions such as the one being considered here.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that scientists are any different than most human beings. Individual scientists can succumb to greed, lust for fame, etc and, occasionally, will get away with publishing intentionally erroneous data. Usually when this happens, especially in an area where so many scientists are working (like climate change), their lies will be uncovered and they will be ruined (ex: cold fusion, etc).

The article being discussed here states that the vast majority of hundreds of studies on the subject have all come to the same conclusions: global warming is both real and anthropogenic. I suggest that the groundswell of /. opinion that all these researchers are wrong/lying is due to the rather unfortunate consequences of the truth. We will have to face the facts that our climate may change. Maybe for Canadians, this will be a good thing. For ocean algae and those in the lower lattitudes it will most certainly be bad.

Society invests a huge amount of money in scientific research each year, and does so in a way that ensures maximum objectivity and honesty on the part of the researchers. Averaged over time and sufficient numbers of studies, science usually hits pretty close to the mark. Therefore, to all those doubting, suck it up and deal with the damage we've done. Don't blame the messenger if you dont like the message.

I imagine someone has picked this up before, but..

[Jim_Callahan]

(1) there has never been any doubt that human activities contribute to global warming. The only point of contention is wether an alteration of our current activities would cause a significant change in the rate of global warming, and wether, if this is the case, we should attempt to do so.

(2)Consensus has nothing to do with truth... unless you subscribe to the WOD view of the universe, in which case we could fix all our problems by believing at them really hard.


Good to know that human foolishness is once again aligned in a predictable direction, though.

insightful?

[vena]

this criticism is pretty slack. it ignores the point of Crichton's diatribe - that being concensus is often used when there's no hard supporting science - in favour of a rib jab. E=mc2 is a quantifiable equation, as is the distance to the sun, and the effect of malnutrition. human affect on the environment, on the other hand, is not honestly quantifiable as the historical data is severely lacking in context. regardless of the simple fact that i'd look sideways at any scientist that claims we're not affecting the global climate, i'd probably look *down* on a scientist that claims it's proven.

does that dismiss human affect on climate change? absolutely not, but there are people who believe that questioning an absolute certainty of it does dismiss it. they're wrong, they're arrogant, and they're not learning from history.

Re:In other news...

[Archie Steel]

Any time you see every scientist agree...

All scientists agree that the Earth is round.

All scientists agree that the sun is made up of Hydrogen.

All scientists agree that gravity pulls things down.

All scientists agree that smoking is bad for you.

All scientists agree that splitting the atom will produce energy.

Why is it that when all scientists agree that human activity is having an effect on Global Climate, all of a sudden your hear all these people begin to doubt them. Claiming that all that these scientists care about is their funding is ludicrous, because many of them will get funding either way. Of course, those that are really into money, like Bjorn Lomborg, will actually argue against the mounting evidence. In exchange they'll get huge grants from industries whose profits might be diminished by scientific enquiry. And those who doubt only when scientists challenge their love for their SUVs, like ostriches, will be happy to put their heads back in the sand and say: see, there's a couple of scientists who say that Global Climate change isn't happening. They must be right!

Personally, I'd rather not take the chance. If Global Warming has only a 10% chance of being true, then the odds are still way too high, because the consequences are catastrophic.

So, in response to you, I say that if every scientist agrees (or at least no scientist disagrees) that Global Climate Change threatens us, then we should be very concerned. We should fund their studies, and if we find out that they misused the funds or overstated the threat in order to get more money, we can always cut that funding. In other words, unlike the most catastrophic scenarios linked to Global Warming, it's a reversible mistake.

Better safe than sorry, especially when the future of humanity is at stake.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. But even if you found some funding (probably from a corp) to do some research in a 'forbidden' direction, try getting your conclusions published in a peer reviewed journal. Won't happen.

It won't get published for reasons such as poor methodology, maths etc. Not because you view is 'forbidden' or not politically correct. You are simply suffering under a conspiracy theory view of Science if you believe otherwise. In fact, while perhaps not in Science, oil-industry funded research, and some not funded by the oil industry, which argues against the consensus of climate change, has been published. It's rare, true, but this rarity is because the bulk of the evidence points in the opposite direction, not because of some grand conspiracy aimed at ensuring funding for climatic research.

> What's controversial about this issue? By asking that question it is clear no rational discourse is possible with you, you too are a religious zealot.

I'm neither religious, not a zealot, and it's called a rhetorical question. I'm asking (as should be clear from the rest of the passage), "where does the controversy here come from?" My point is that there is little scientifc controversy. The controversy is largely injected at the political level.

Hopefully others reading this thread are less invested in the theory to reject all discussion out of hand on the issue.

Again, I'm not going to reject out of hand any discussion based on evidence and a scientific understanding of that evidence out of hand. Quite the opposite, I genuinely hope that we are all wrong! I hope to wake up tomorrow and that it was all a bad dream, a mass delusions of the world scientific community caused by some faulty maths somewhere down the line. And you know why I hope this? It's because, at our current state of knowledge, the conclusion that we are headed for a very nasty time climatically is ineluctable and because I have children. But I'm not going to stick my head in the sand on this one.

[I]f one is politically aware, one notices that the loudest voices in the Global Warming crowd also want to dismantle Western Civilivation

I consider myself fairly politically aware, but I'm quite unable to see how shifting from oil to uranium amounts to a dismantling of Western Civilization. Perhaps you can clear that one up for me? Again the opposite is true, it's through technological advance alone that we are going to beat this one. We have to move away from this C19th energy source.

Re:In other news...

[letxa2000]

Me: Any time you see every scientist agree... You: All scientists agree that the Earth is round. All scientists agree that the sun is made up of Hydrogen. All scientists agree that gravity pulls things down. All scientists agree that smoking is bad for you. All scientists agree that splitting the atom will produce energy.

I knew that was coming when I posted it. That's why my original post was written "Any time you see every scientist agree on a very controversial topic, be very suspicious." The issues you mentioned are not controversial.

Convenient quoting on your part. Usually indicative of an agenda.

Why is it that when all scientists agree that human activity is having an effect on Global Climate, all of a sudden your hear all these people begin to doubt them.

If all scientists truly agreed that human activity is having an effect on global climate (lower case is fine) then I don't think you'd have a lot of people doubting them (not just beginning, we've doubted them for a long time!). The fact is that all scientists do not agree this is true. The only thing this article proves is that the collection of articles they selected from the subset of scientific literature that they deemed worthy of reviewing supports their conclusion. You don't even have to be a scientist to recognize just how hokey the whole basis for this article is.

Claiming that all that these scientists care about is their funding is ludicrous

I'm not claiming it's the only thing they care about. But you're naive if you think it doesn't enter their mind.

... because many of them will get funding either way.

Oh really? Who is going to fund research proving that global warming is not real. Industry, that's about it. So they'll be quickly labeled an industry stooge by their colleagues (just as you did in your message) and their standing in the community will go down. Not because they're wrong but because they're going against the grain.

And those that would (or would have) funded research to prove that global warming is not ocurring has already done that. We know that there is a lot of doubt regarding global warming. Anyone with an open mind and critical thinking skills can recognize that there is more than reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the predictions of the pro-global warming crowd. As their models become "more accurate" their predictions of natural calamities slowly become less and less severe. And they spend more time engaging in gloom and doom and explaining why the satellite record doesn't confirm their predictions than actually getting real science done.

In exchange they'll get huge grants from industries whose profits might be diminished by scientific enquiry.

Or by "junk science." Take your pick of terms.

Personally, I'd rather not take the chance. If Global Warming has only a 10% chance of being true, then the odds are still way too high, because the consequences are catastrophic.

Sorry, that's extremism talking. If there is a 10% chance of it being true and it's going to cost a trillion dollars worldwide to fix the problem then we had better be avoiding at least $10 trillion worth of damage. If not then it was not a worthwhile investment. It may be cheaper to just move the people that live too close to the ocean than to try to keep the ocean from rising and pay a little more in insurance for the supposedly more frequent severe storms.

Not to mention no-one really knows what the consequences of global warming is if it's true. All we have are models created by scientists that find themselves, quite frankly, in a position of power and public importance that scientists would not normally find themselves.

So, in response to you, I say that if every scientist agrees (or at least no scientist disagrees) that Global Climate Change threatens us, then we should be very concerned.

Re:In other news...

[Xabraxas]

If the earth is warming because it is SUPPOSED to be warming, say due to the documented increase in sunspot activity being related to increased solar output, then Kyoto means destroying our economy just to boost the self esteem of a few hippy freaks.

Are you utterly clueless? Have you seen the Los Angeles skyline, or worse Mexico City? Decreasing emissions is beneficial whether or not they cause global warming. The first thing the government should be thinking about is the health of the people, not the economy.

Re:In other news...

[Mr_Matt]

Are you an atmospheric scientist? You make some good points, but your general attitude leads me to believe that you don't have much experience in dealing with scientists. To wit:

• Scientists think about funding, but pushing an agenda to acheive funding is ultimately a career-limiting move when the political pendulum shifts, as it has in recent years. And as with most things, the scientific ego supercedes the need to seek acceptance through funding - scientists will push theories they believe in, and try to swing funding their way, not vice versa.
• Have you actually read any of the literature regarding climate change? It doesn't sound like it - you don't see much politicizing in peer-reviewed journals. Certainly the exacting of personal/institutional spats occurs, but the literature certainly doesn't read the way you imply it does.
• I don't think stating that no scientific paper reviewed discounts anthropomorphic climate change will have a chilling effect on climate research: scientists are well aware that correlation is not the same as causation, after all. When reliable evidence that supports the theory that climate change occurs independent of human activity surfaces, it will be published. When reliable evidence that supports the theory that climate change occurs because of human activity, it will also be published. Until then, we'll continue to study the mechanisms behind climate change and look for links. It's just that simple.
• The Science article merely states that the bulk of peer-reviewed literature allows for the possibility of anthropogenic climate change, nothing more. Anything you read into it sounds more like your agenda than anything else.

Anyways, take it as you will - I doubt seriously you're prepared to think critically about this topic. But making blanket statements accusing scientists of massive malfeasance to further a political agenda that counters your own smacks more of conspiracy theory than a reasoned argument, and it certainly doesn't impress the average scientific Slashdot reader.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore the political biases of the Global Warming crowd, ignore everything but blatent self interest, and unless you want to be laughed at you must admit that scientists are human and subject to act in their self interest.

I started off by arguing that self-interest would lead scientists from accepting the much more lucrative funding which is available to the skeptics. In any case you cleary are indulging a consipracy view here, which leaves little room for sane discussion, so next topic.

Sunspot activity

You really believe this isn't (has been) incorporated into the models?

No computer models exists that can be loaded with 1900 and then allowed to run and produce the 20th century.

Two things. 1. Agree, computer models are just complex models. I'm unconvinced that the specific predictions being made will come to pass. On the other hand, it is beyond doubt that singificantly altering the constitution of the atmosphere will have climatic implications. It is also beyond doubt that climatic changes, which are not inconsistent with theoretical predictions are being observed. You need also to remember the geological record.

2. Your statement seems to indicate that you are confusing a model with a simulation.

Very few records of long term tempratures exist where the measuring station is not now inside a urban heat dome.

A valid argument in 1989, but no longer in 2004. You will find peer reviewed papers from this era pointing that out (which argues against your conspiracy theory). In the meantime the instrumental record has been corrected for this effect. There's no longer any doubt about warming. Nowadays even the most extremist skeptic only argues about the anthropogenic nature thereof.

Why not call for Fusion power while you are at it.

Simple. It's not a proven technology (or any technology). I might as well called for solar, wind etc. power. But you haven't answered my question, which was "how does moving from oil to uranium amount to a dismantling of Western Civilization?"

Being overly clever primates we can probably fix the same way, especially ones that operate over such a long time horizon.

Yes, but what about immediate time problems like global warming? We think we are overly clever primates, but the very fact that we are still arguing about whether a problem exists, rather than getting on and fixing it would seem to evidence the opposite.

Re:In other news...

[Nilmat]

Not really. But even if you found some funding (probably from a corp) to do some research in a 'forbidden' direction, try getting your conclusions published in a peer reviewed journal. Won't happen. And of course after that you will be blacklisted so you can change careers because you will never be accepted as a 'real scientist' again, because all 'real scientists' believe in Global Warming about like Christians believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Let me introduce myself. I'm a reviewer for a number of peer-reviewed journals and, broadly speaking, a climate change scientist. If a journal sent me a paper to review that questioned some aspect of current theories onglobal climate change, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. If the methodology and data were there and matched the conclusions, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend publication. From past conversations with my colleagues, I know lots of other scientists feel the same way. Look, ultimately it's not that hard to get something published in a peer-reviewed journal of some kind. If scientists were finding evidence refuting global climate warming, it would be published.

Since I don't feel like finding another post to attach this to, here's a response to a couple of other points:

1) Forget the whole theory that global warming is simply an artifact of urban heat islands. We fixed that particular problem with the data in the early 1990s. The urban heat island effect is without a doubt the best-understood phenomenon in climatology, and even with the effects removed climate is still warming.

2) Sunspot activity doesn't explain most of the climate change story either. It's part of the story, but definitely not all of it. If you want to check out a paper on the subject, I suggest the following (I know its a few years old, but the findings haven't changed subsantially since this paper):
Cedric Bertrand, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Potential Role of Solar Variability as an Agent for Climate Change, Climatic Change, Volume 43, Issue 2, October 1999, Pages 387 - 411

note: I'm not telling you to believe the paper. Just to read it. If you understand enough about what's going on to do so, please feel free to poke holes in it. That's part of science.

Re:In other news...

[Mant]

No, but all too many 'scientists' are Gaians or worse.

Some scientists in the environmental areas do subscribe to the Gaia Hypothesis, but even that has many levels. At it's most basic it means treating the whole ecosystem as a macro-organism. It doesn't mean you think the Earth is one living creature, or you are some tree-hugging hippy, just because some of those people believe in the more extreme end of the hypothesis.

Of course they are the only voices you will hear in the mainstream press.

You must have missed that whole Slashdot thread based on a Wired article, about how media's desire to show both sides of the argument in cases like global warming meant they had to hunt around for people on the "humans have no effect side". The mainstream press was out there looking for these guys, but all they could find was people in the pay of companies. The whole thing was about how they got a disproportionately large amount of media coverage in the name of balanced reporting.

Or the scientific papers, because dissenting voices can't make it past peer review and scientists being generally above average in intelligence know this so would tend to not bother attempting to publish a career ending paper.

Proving the rest of the scientific community wrong is about the best career move you can make. Scientific history is full of examples, indeed, the whole scientific process relies on it. Science establishes a consensus, until there is sufficient evidence against it,

If nobody brought up anything against the current scientific consensus, science would never move anywhere. Your tinfoil hat ideas about how science work just undermine your whole credibility.

If a proven danger to thee, me and everyone exists, then yes our government then has a duty to act in the common defence as provided for in the Constitution.

It would be nice if life always gave us all the information we need before making a decision. Sometimes though, it doesn't. You have to try and assess the risks, and potential consequences, if you wait too long for proof, it will be too late.

Unless you happen to be one of the ones who loses their livelihood in the economic chaos that signing Kyoto would bring.

Because all those other countries that signed up are head straight for economic chaos, right? Kyoto has flaws, but those aren't an excuse for doing nothing because you don't want to upset big business. It looks to the rest of the world like the US Government isn't just showing some scepticism, which would be no bad thing, but sticking its fingers in its ears and going 'la la la' to the topic. As irrationally opposed to the concept as these fiendish "worse than Gaian" types whose danger you highlight for us.