Slashdot Mirror
Doubling of CO2 Not So Tragic After All?
carvalhao writes "The Register reports on a study from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that claims that new climate models that account for the effects of increased CO2 levels on plant growth result on a 1.64 C increase for a doubling of CO2 concentrations, a far less gloomy scenario than previously considered."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification stop calling the huge change taking place "global warming" that make it sounds like nice cozy sauna. The effects are much more complicated.
Hopefully reports like this are taken as good news not fuel for the skeptics and deniers.
Doublethink detected!
So the deniers are always wrong? Even when the proponents change their models to reveal that they were right?
Skepticism, I'd argue, is inherently good. Being environmentally conscientious should be a result of good science to be meaningful, not of being on the populist "team green". The moment we take a critical eye off our own views is the moment that our causes lose meaning.
/* MAGIC THEATRE
ENTRANCE NOT FOR EVERYBODY
MADMEN ONLY */
1.64DegC is still within the error bars for climate sensitivity that have not significantly changed since the 1970's; ie: 3.0DegC +/- 1.5 degC for a doubling of CO2.
The abstract itself claims: "By accelerating the water cycle, this feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming, reducing the land surface warming by 0.6C. Compared to previous studies, these results imply that long term negative feedback from CO2 induced increases in vegetation density could reduce temperature following a stabilization of CO2 concentration." [My emphasis] - In other words nature will suck up our excess if we stop pumping into the atmosphere faster than she can cope with it, which has been the assumption for many years.
Disclaimer: I'm not rubbishing the study I think it's a valuable in the effort to reduce the above mentioned error bars. However despite the inference of the summary it does not change the risk assesment one iota.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
No, dumbass, that's celsius coordinates.
Yah! Finally! Some is asking the right question. Here are the wrong questions:
1) Is the climate warming or cooling?
2) Are humans responsible?
Here are the right questions:
3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now?
4) When is that going to happen?
Maybe you need to answer the first two questions to answer the last two but if no-one is asking the last two then we're likely to run off half-cocked and implement political policy that does more harm than good. (see, for example, cap and trade).
How we know is more important than what we know.
A doubling of atmospheric CO2 partial pressure above a water surface will acidify it by approx. 0.2 pH units. (ref.)
If the last century is to go by, I doubt we're going to see an increase in vegetation anytime soon. We've already lost 20% of the Amazon since 1970.
You deduced 'always' from my one liner? Any way...No. to answer your question The point is there is plenty of evidence that it is happening, varying degrees of urgency or lack thereof does not change the overall message and science
RGdot.com
This. Someone afraid of skeptics, and lumping them with the deniers, is someone pushing a religion, not someone interested in science.
Err... you mean the models the conspiracy theorists like to believe exist, which would link solar activity to global warming? The ones that would've predicted a decline in the warming trend over the last solar minimum. A decline that, well, didn't happen?
*Those* models?
There's nothing wrong with ideology. Skepticism is an ideology. Without ideology we wouldn't have the scientific method.
Climate models != Weather models.
Weather models (which can easily be objectively checked via existing and coming weather patterns) are an attempt to describe the weather on small scale in great detail)
Climate models (which cannot easily be objectively checked via weather data) are an attempt to describe the average weather in an area over a large period of time. The only evidence for or against is over periods of hundreds to thousands of years as regional or even global averages.
The simple fact is climate models have not existed long enough for them to be checked with any great statistical significance, and they are at a huge disadvantage from human nature because people use weather fallacies to discredit climate all the time.
Just because a climate model predicts lower-than-normal wind patterns, doesn't mean the windiest day on record for isolated regions can't happen during that period without invalidating the model. Just because a climate model predicts periods of colder-than-normal climates, doesn't mean the hottest day on record for isolated locations can't occur during that period without invalidating the model. Just because a climate model predicts cloudier-than-normal patterns, doesn't mean the sunniest stretch of weather on record for some regions can't occur during that period without invalidating the model.
This is exactly what happens on a daily basis though. We have an idea that short-term climate models are getting closer and some are more accurate than others, but we don't have enough data to show statistical significance to even decade-length climate models. If you get to century-or-greater climate models, we have historical data and estimations to work off of, but no empirical "check" data to work off of.
The mere suggestion that climate models are not accurately predicting shows you are suffering from this exact same fallacious logic.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208085145.htm
This is a much better summary. Also, the OP misquotes the 2X CO2 value as 1.64. The study found 1.94C, and a decrease of 0.6 compared to the model without the feedback. Even 2.6 is on the low end. With some recent work on cloud feedbacks, 4C is more likely.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
The first real demonstration of climate model skill was in the 1960's when models predicted the counter intuitive phenomena of stratosphereic cooling. The next significant demonstration was when models in the 80's predicted the phenomena of polar-amplification. Both these phenomena were predicted by models before they were confirmed with observations. As for predicting the global average temprature trend the observations have been well within the error bars of model predictions since the 1970's.
"You wouldnt get in an airplane designed by model results as crappy as these"
Hate to break this to you but you already do, climate models work on the same finite element algorithims as any other engineering model does when there is no anylitical solution to the equations. Computers have been doing this type of numerical analysis since they were first invented and took over the job of producing artilery tables. Such methods have revolutionised both science and engineering over the pats 50yrs to the point that no major engineering project would dare contemplate not using them.
Are they perfect? - Of course not but imperfect certainly does not mean useless, if it did all of science would be useless.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
So the deniers are always wrong? Even when the proponents change their models to reveal that they were right?
Who has been proven to be correct? Which deniers have ever stated that doubling CO2 will result in a 1.64C rise? I doubt anyone has said that before. Instead we get a range of responses, such as:
You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes and then claim success when one of those guesses comes true. It is just not scientific. It is the same as trying to claim you have ESP because you can accurately predict the outcome of a coin toss 50% of the time.
Skepticism is good. Denial in face of a mountain of evidence is not.
I've yet to see an anthropogenic global warming "skeptic" who wasn't just a denier JAQing off. I mean seriously, what is there to be skeptical about? What part of the IPCC Working Group 1 report is wrong? The Earth is getting warmer, it's due to our carbon emissions, and all that's left to argue about is what the impact will be.
You can kinda sorta be "skeptical" about how negative of an impact that will be, but again I've yet to see anyone who's managed to make a good argument that more carbon and warmer average temperatures will somehow be good for us in general. And no, "carbon is plant food!" is not a good argument.
Models are garbage, even hindcasted.
Peer reviewed study here: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928
End of story. We should not be making any decisions based on faulty models, and all of the models in use can't even accurately predict the weather that's happened in the past, with verifiable data.
Om, nomnomnom...
Be that as it may, the level of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen from about about 280 parts per million before the industrial revolution, to about 380 ppm at present. The burden of proof is on those who believe that that's not going to have a noticeable impact to make their case, and if their conclusions are at all in doubt, the path of prudence is to not rock the boat, and do what we can to cut back on CO2 emissions.
It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.
It's not an unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp. We HAVE grasped it. It's just that Al Gore and friends and politicians who like to hop on the green bandwagon and people who think being "green" is going to stop global warming refuse to believe it.
Now, that's not to say that being "green" (whatever the fuck that means) is a bad thing. There's plenty of other things that can be stopped by producing less emissions, including lowering the amount of smog in the air and indirectly reducing our dependance on foreign energy sources (because god forbid we drill for oil off OUR coast). Global warming just isn't one of them, and this apocalypse that's going to happen in 10 years if we don't drastically alter our energy habits... simply won't.
It's happening all right, but I still have my doubts if it is happening due to man or if it's part of some unknown cycle of Earth which is too complicated for us to grasp yet.
It is of course always possible that something we don't understand is going on, but the physics of greenhouse gasses seems to be quite well established. There doesn't seem to be a lot of need to look farther, unless you just don't like the unavoidable conclusion.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Without ideology we wouldn't have the scientific method.
I find it strange that people think the scientific method is based on a philosophy or ideology. What scientists do is no different from what us common folk do when we debug a program or try to fix a mechanical system: you notice something funny (program gives wrong result, car won't start, water rising in basement) so you or the called-in expert speculates on the cause and then proceed on the basis of that speculation. If the facts don't bear it out, you pause, scratch your head and come up with a new speculation. Repeat as needed.
AFAICT even the most uneducated of us operate the same way in whatever we do. I suspect it's instinct, or at least such a basic result of the exercise of intelligence that no intelligent species could avoid operating that way.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes and then claim success when one of those guesses comes true.
I guess my question for you is, why is it so important to you that the factions be in lockstep and monolithic thinkers? The science is not settled, and I don't think ANYBODY would argue that we have an even remotely complete understanding of environment/climate. Not all the "deniers" as you choose to call them believe the same thing. This is pretty standard for any academic field...and what's wrong with that? Furthermore, of your propositions, are any of them mutually exclusive?
For instance, nobody at all argues that human industry has not emitted CO2 over the last 200 years... but how much compared to natural sources? Some people argue that point. Is that mutually exclusive with CO2 not impacting temperature as a causal factor? Are either of those in opposition to CO2 levels responding to global temperature changes? Obviously if those are your arguments, they're not inconsistent with each other.
I read "skeptic" blogs and "established science" blogs on climate change, and frankly I don't know enough to judge much of any of the science, math, or methodology on the merits. I do see a lot of behavior that makes me skeptical about members on both sides. Climate Audit I think has jumped the shark, but the blog's purpose--to get scientists to open up their data, code, and methodology seems perfectly reasonable, and objections (or, the way SOME scientists have responded) to those things do make me question motivations, etc.
There is nothing absolutely nothing in the paper that suggests that the authors have studied any plants at all. They merely extrapolate an effect based on some very large assumptions that plants everywhere can be represented by a few simple parameters in their model. A look at most of the arid regions of the world, demonstrate that these assumptions are wildly optimistic. Ground cover in these regions is shrinking dramatically due to lack of soil moisture.
Not only that, but there is absolutely no evidence for the involvement of CO2 in 'it.'
Wrong. There is plenty of evidence, you just disregard it and consider it invalid.
correlation does not imply causation, it implies connection.
Right. Only we have a lot more than correlation.
Let's look at four steps for demonstrating causality:
1. Temporal ordering? Check. CO2 increase came before temperatures started exceeding their normal variance.
2. Correlation? Check. Temperatures continued to increase, as predicted, with minor variation and regression towards the mean, but that mean continually increased with corresponding CO2 (actually, GHG) increases.
3. Causal Mechanism? Check. Radiative forcing is firmly established, as is the physics and other interactions that back this theory up. We have a lot of very solid work in this area, and our observations match our predictions. If anything, our predictions are overly conservative because our assumptions are so conservative.
4. Eliminate Confounding Variables? Check. We've eliminated every other theory/hypothesis to explain temperature rise. We know the current temperature rises are abnormal and differ from previous changes. We know it's not due to solar variation or (heresy) a decrease in pirates. There may be another confounding variable out there, but nobody has found it or made a serious scientific case in its favor.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Just want to verify that everyone who is full-on convinced about the negative effects of climate change is a vegetarian. At this point it's essentially indisputable that eating meat -- particularly beef, but all meat due to second order effects aside from methane (increased fuel usage for the additional grain required to grow animals, etc) -- is a significant factor in greenhouse gas production. If every American became vegetarian, the reduction of greenhouse gasses would be greater than swapping out every SUV for an electric car. So, those of you pilloring consumers, government, or industry -- you've already made the switch, right? Cause you wouldn't want to be hypocritical.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
I guess my question for you is, why is it so important to you that the factions be in lockstep and monolithic thinkers?
Speaking for myself, not the GP, but my main complaint is that most of the deniers I've interacted with aren't even in lockstep with themselves. They vacillate between arguing that the planet is cooling, that the planet is warming naturally due to solar cycles, and that the rising temperatures are causing rising CO2. If you point out the flaws in their argument, many will go on to claim that it's all a socialist conspiracy to redistribute wealth, restrict freedom, and get more research money.
My main concern is that the majority of deniers DON'T seem to have a cohesive, intellectually honest argument. Their most outspoken leaders frequently misrepresent both science and politics (ala "Climate Gate").
Not all the "deniers" as you choose to call them believe the same thing. This is pretty standard for any academic field...and what's wrong with that?
Other than my point above, I'll also add that very few of the deniers actually currently do research related to the field. I've seen some very prominent MDs and electrical engineers argue that climate scientists are clueless, but within the field there is very little variance. The vast majority of papers I've seen on the subject say, "Oh, I agree with your methodology and conclusions, but you got this little piece slightly off. You need to reconsider this little piece of your model and make an adjustment of 0.003 here." If anything, the field itself is far less divided than many others.
For instance, nobody at all argues that human industry has not emitted CO2 over the last 200 years... but how much compared to natural sources? Some people argue that point.
All available evidence shows that they are wrong. We have multiple lines of evidence, and all signs point towards the preponderance of CO2 and GHG level increases being caused by human activities.
...and frankly I don't know enough to judge much of any of the science, math, or methodology on the merits.
Hey, now we can agree! Very few people know enough to judge the conclusions of a multidisciplinary area like climate modeling. Those who DO know enough are already working in the field. Even retired climatologists may not be trustworthy sources because they may not be keeping up with modern advances ("The evidence sucked when I retired in 1980, therefore it must be false.").
Knowing this, we usually look at a consensus. Every good survey or report I've ever seen has shown an overwhelming consensus within the field that anthropogenic climate change is real. Every survey/petition/letter I've seen proclaiming the opposite has been flawed by including MDs, EEs, DDSs, and other "sciencey" fields to gather more signatures.
Even ignoring a consensus, the conservative approach is to limit emissions until you know with high confidence that emissions are safe. People are trying to establish a 1% confidence level for AGW when they should really be establishing a 1% confidence level for emissions being safe.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
What accounts for the new ice-age we are entering, with year-to-year glacial expansion, and London's prospective 3rd white Christmas in a row?
Glacial expansion? I'm very interested in a link about growing glaciers. My impression is that most major glaciers (other than East Antarctica, obviously) are shrinking.
Also, keep in mind that London is not the entire world. Amsterdam is also having its second white Sinterklaas in a row (after decades of not even having any white Christmasses), but that means nothing on a global scale. It's perfectly possible for north-west Europe to become colder while the rest of the world gets warmer. Consider that we're at the same latitude as Moscow and Calgary. It's the warm gulf stream that's keeping us warm. Without it, expect an ice age in Europe, despite warming in the rest of the world.
correlation does not imply causation, it implies connection.
The first part of this is true - but it's important to bear in mind that the use of "imply" in this statement is not the same as the colloquial use. Imply here means "prove" - correlation does not prove causation. A suggestion for a more accurate way of phrasing the statement that avoids confusion is "correlation does not imply causation, but it is a hint".
I point this out because the second part of your statement isn't true unless you're taking the colloquial meaning of "imply", since it is not true that correlation always means there is connection - coincidence is also a possibility. Taking this meaning (that correlation suggests there is a connection) it would be true in many circumstances to say that correlation implied causation.
You know, we don't actually know *what* causes ice ages (and no it's not the gulfstream) ... the long-term graphs seem to indicate pretty strongly that one is indeed coming :
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/globalchange/images/temp-001.gif (source http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/globalchange/climate_change.asp)
I mean the graph has jumped 10 degrees downward 10 times like clockwork every 100000-110000 years or so. Seems logical that it will in fact jump again, doesn't it ? Last time it jumped was about 108000 years ago. So it's pretty much bound to jump again. And I repeat, we do *not* know what causes this, and the temperature drops like a stone (weather apparently goes from normal to ice age conditions, meaning permafrost in the northern sahara, and a *very* white Christmas in southern Mexico, while Florida becomes an ice sheet, just to give an idea how extreme this is, in less than 10 years). That's 10 years, triggered by some unknown event, after which America less inhabitable than Greenland. Even the deserts of the middle east will be cold conditions, and harsh winters, at best.
Of course the error margin on these data are like 500-1000 years, which is a lot of time. But while we don't know why or how, *something* is going to trigger an ice age, pretty soon now. But that's "pretty soon" in "very likely in the next 2000 years" ...
True, but that doesn't mean that previous scientific conclusions will be completely refuted. Newton's Law of Gravity turned out to be wrong and was replaced, but in practice their predictions are 99% the same. It's only that 1% that required a better theory. The Theory of Evolution has seen a lot of refinements over the past 150 years, but the basics stand. We don't fully understand all the effects and feedback mechanisms behind global warming, but the basic theory that rising CO2 means retaining more heat, is sound.
The climate change thing is sold as a whole package, a "You believe all of this or you are a DENIER!" kind of thing. However it is really a series of arguments, and at each level someone might have questions. Even some of the basics there can be some questions about. I mean the most basic is "The Earth is getting warmer, outside of any currently known cycles and over a longer period of time." Ok, pretty strong evidence here, but still there is things to look in to. The temperature recording stations have not been controlled and monitored the way we might hope, the record is not as accurate as we would like. Probably nothing that affects any results but in good science you don't write shit off just because it might be inconvenient. That doesn't mean "Look we found a potential inaccuracy, throw it all out!" but it also doesn't mean that questions shouldn't be looked in to.
A bigger things to question would be all the dire predictions, that a couple degrees in temperature rise leads to massive problems, massive loss of life and so on. This really doesn't have any good evidence and is pretty close to fear mongering. Yes I'm aware there are computer models, appreciate that means nothing. You can make a computer model to say whatever you want, a model is only good if it accurately models things, if it has proven predictive power. There is a lot to question in the "Warming means our DOOM," part of the argument.
An even bigger question would be that in the case that is correct, that cutting emissions is the thing to do. The reason is best as we can tell the Earth has been much warmer, and colder, in the past than it is now. So real good chance that happens again, to think that we are in some magic time of stability where all variation has stopped would be extremely silly. Thus sooner or later, no matter what we do, the temperature will almost certainly shift multiple degrees. If that is truly going to be deadly to us, then the concentration needs to not be on what is causing this change, but how to survive such a change. It does no good to make drastic cuts to emissions and stop this change (presuming that it would indeed stop this change) only to then get hit with a change that humans DIDN'T cause and thus can't stop.
You can very well accept many of the fundamental ideas (like that the Earth is getting warmer) and yet still question the conclusions and policy propositions. This idea that it is part and parcel, that you have to accept EVERYTHING, all the premises, all the conclusions and all the policy without question or your are a DENIER is false. It also leads one to question what the hell is going on. A student of human behaviour immediately recognizes that tactic: That of a con man. That is how people peddling fake crap, religions, and other things that don't stand up to scrutiny do it. They present their show and shout down anyone who questions it at all. They attack people who question because they know their argument does not stand up to questioning. Only blind acceptance of the entire package is acceptable, anything else draws hostility.
As such one may wonder why this is done with regards to climate change. It makes some of us nervous.
On what basis do you claim temporal ordering?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg shows that the temperature fluctuations PRECEDED the CO_2 fluctuations.
Note: I'm seriously asking. No need to personally attack me or anything; I'm not personally attacking you. I'm assuming you have some piece of evidence other than the ice core data on which you're basing your claim of temporal ordering, and I'm just asking you what that is.
Have a nice day,
---linuxrocks123
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
The science has been overcome by the politics. Let's take anthropogenic global warming as fact. What next? Obviously the offending anthropogenic behavior must be controlled. This leads to an increase in wealth and power for a select few; the natural evolution of institutions.
At this point I don't care about the science. The politics must be stopped.
When big government and big science collude, we all get screwed.
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
In Climate Science, "peer review" is more a guarantee that spelling errors have been corrected and that the gate-keepers are keeping the journal "on message" than it is a guarantee of correct methodology and/or conclusions. Two examples spring to mind: Mann's hockey stick and Steig's Antarctic warming paper. Both of these have had front-page placement in Nature and both of them were unmitigated bollocks. So no, on this issue particularly, peer review is more about censorship than it is about truth.
Obviously OA is the next big Green scare. I can't believe you're such an idiot as to not see this for what it really is: political activism.
The question is, on what is the usual refutation of your point based?
You know, the one that goes like this: something other than CO2 started the temperature rise, but then, after 800-1000 years, the temperature rise caused a rise in CO2, and from that point on, for the next 4000 years or so, the CO2 caused all the further warming, until, again, something which we don't know, caused it all to drop. Therefore, it is all consistent with CO2 as driver, for as you can see, in those 4000 years (whilst temperatures were rising after CO2 had also started rising), the CO2 caused a great deal of warming.
IIRC that's the basic refutation. See how that makes sense to you.
"Climate change" is such a clever slogan because climate, almost by definition, is and has always been changing. So far, so good. It should be unsurprising, however, that skepticism is evoked when any idea, especially a scientific theory, is so passionately embraced by political movements spawned to both advance the theory and "solve" the expected ill. Yes, propaganda can be targeted for good or ill intent, but when it becomes so loud, obnoxious, and ubiquitous that it attempts to discourage all legitimate debate, intentions matter little regardless how pure and saintly the proponents. Sorry to say I just come equipped with activist warning lights. When it comes to the depth of our understanding of systems so complex and paradoxically subtle as climate, ham-handed political "solutions" are far more likely to spawn unknown and unintended consequences than mitigation to ascribed risks.
There's a few problems with your statement:
1) "Climate change" isn't a slogan, it's the name of the problem. A slogan would be "More cars, less land".
2) While the climate does change naturally, it changes naturally on a much slower time scale than we are currently experiencing. That's why scientists usually talk about Anthropogenic Climate Change.
3) There are political movements spawned to fix many different problems, and all of them provide "solutions" for the expected ills of the problem. It wouldn't be a political movement if it didn't propose solutions to the problem. This is expected.
4) Skepticism is good, and thus many people like to think or pretend that they're skeptics. It's usually pretty easy to spot the people who only claim to be skeptics because they do not critically examine their own evidence only the evidence of others.
5) At some point debate has to end, there is literally no benefit to having to argue every day over whether 2+2=4 and whether gravity will continue working tomorrow.
6) Ham-handed political solutions always spawn unknown and unintended consequences. The benefits of taking action have to weighed against the risks.
Most of the world would rather be talking about the benefits and drawbacks of different solutions to the problems posed by climate change, however, as long as the so-called debate over whether the problem actually exists it's difficult to have a rational discussion about what to do about the problem. Upton Sinclair wrote in one of his books: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!", and the debate over climate change has certainly demonstrated the profoundity of that statement. At some point, the debate has to end, regardless of how many people would rather that it continue until after they have retired and their salaries are no longer dependent on the problem not being addressed. There will always be a question of how much evidence is enough.
That's something you might need to ask yourself. What would actually convince you that climate change represents a danger to the lives of millions, possibly billions of people?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The only reason "global warming" didn't "pan out" is that there are too many idiots around who call BS every time it snows because they can't comprehend that the warming is on average. What "global warming" really means is that you're adding more energy to the system and thereby increasing volatility -- hot places get hotter, cold places get colder, storms get stronger, droughts get drier. It's like how the surface of a glass of water gets less flat when you shake it. But you dumbasses just don't fucking get it, so it got renamed "climate change" to try to help you understand.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
1. Regardless of whether you like the term climate change or not, and whether or not your paranoia is justified, climate change is still not a slogan.
2. 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record. I'm not sure how this plays into your claim that temperatures are falling. In fact, as I understand it, the 10 hottest years on record are (in order): 2010*, 1998, 2005, 2009, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2001. That list doesn't look much like "temperatures are falling". In fact, NASA is predicting that 2012 will likely displace 2010 as the hottest year on record.
3. Carbon taxes would not allow the skimming of profits to private funds and banking cartels. As a "tax" it would be going to governments. Cap and trade, on the other hand, would most definitely result in profit form private enterprises. In fact, I dare say, the whole idea of cap and trade is based on the idea that is better from private industry to profit than for the government to profit from the production of CO2.
4. We should be skeptical of all claims, not just those of people we disagree with. Many of your views, in particular, seem to be wildly out of sync with reality. A little more healthy skepticism of the people who you agree with might help you back to some views grounded in reality.
5. This is a perfect example of why debate has to eventually end. If you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a fraud or con artist then there can only ever be one satisfactory end to a debate. Now imagine there is at least one person who thinks the same way as you on the other side. The debate is now eternal, regardless of the merits of the arguments.
6. You might like to look at some the temperature graphs. The line is still trending upwards. It's true that 1998 and 2005 were the top 2 warmest years on record. However, the average global temperature for 2009 was virtually the same as the temperature of 2005. We expect to see warming and cooling cycles related to El nino and El nina effects. The next year that is likely to experience similar conditions to 1998 is expected to be 2012.
Yes, weather events do kill people every year, however, climate change is making many natural disasters worse and the greatest threats aren't from freak weather conditions but from changes systematic changes in agricultural areas. If once fertile areas are rendered minimally fertile due to repeated flooding, droughts, and pest migrations, it will likely take years (at best) to replace them. War and famine triggered by climate change represent the biggest threats from climate change. It is in our best interest to carefully consider what the consequences of each action is, including the consequences of inaction.
* As 2010 is not yet done, in theory there still remains a chance that it will be the second or third warmest year on record.
Fanatically anti-fanatical