Who is lying here? Congress? I'm sure that there are journal articles to back up everything these guys say. They have scientific advisers, albeit biased ones, that know where to search for models and data and interpretations of data that back what they claim in Congress. How is that different than Romm finding the articles and steering readers to the articles that back his point? The fact of the matter is that there is not a rigorous test of nonlinear models of these kind and there is all kinds of data out there to back just about everyone's point of view on the issue of climate. There is a great site realclimate.org that tries to sift through this stuff and supplies all the science and references. I suggest you check it out.

student_on_the_rebound: "The best my professor could manage is that "Humans are having an impact. But we're also coming out of an ice cage. Rock formations and fossils demonstrate that when the dinosaurs existed, the climate was much, much hotter, and much of the Earth covered in water.""

Your professor is missing a key point with respect to the theory of man-made global warming, student_on_the_rebound: the available scientific evidence indicates that the earth isn't just warming, but that it is warming at a faster rate than at any other time we've been been able infer about in history.

Picture-worth-1000-words-dept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And that increase in rate is both explained predicted by CO2-driven global warming theory.

student_on_the_rebound: "A poster earlier said, in response to my post, that "studies were ongoing." Well, if studies are still ongoing, and there is nothing very conclusive to show me, a scientific layman, then what can you hope for?"

You are confusing "studies were ongoing" with "there is nothing very conclusive to show" - these are not the same thing. In all branches of science "studies are ongoing" - and in most of those branches there is also plenty that is "conclusive to show," including with respect to climate science.

Here are some "conclusive to show" points with respect to global warming:

• The earth is warming.
• Since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, the earth has been warming at a faster rate than at any other time we've been been able infer about in history.
• The sun is not a primary driver for the earth's current warming trend.
• CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Which is to say, when in the atmosphere it acts to trap heat so it does not escape the atmosphere.
• Throughout history, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been highly correlated with global temperatures.
• CO2 is a significant byproduct of fossil fuel burning.
• CO2 from fossil fuel burning is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
• CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at the highest levels they have been in hundreds of thousands of years.
• Based on these findings and others, the consensus of climate scientists is (per the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other national science academies):

  There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate... Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

  http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

"lies versus missing information

Who is lying here? Congress? I'm sure that there are journal articles to back up everything these guys say. They have scientific advisers, albeit biased ones, that know where to search for models and data and interpretations of data that back what they claim in Congress. How is that different than Romm finding the articles and steering readers to the articles that back his point? The fact of the matter is that there is not a rigorous test of nonlinear models of these kind and there is all kinds of data out there to back just about everyone's point of view on the issue of climate. There is a great site realclimate.org that tries to sift through this stuff and supplies all the science and references. I suggest you check it out.

-- maxwell127 "

How do you have time to blog rush limbaugh. don't you spend all your time popping pills and lying to old people all day. How do you have ime to blog, rush/hannity?

Mr. Romm leaves out an important fact in his story; when polled, most Americans do not support the kind of legislation he is proposing. It is not just conservatives.

The fact is, the people who believe in man made climate change and the radical plans to stop it, have not made their case to the American people. Many of us question why 31,000 scientists would sign the Oregon Petition (which questions APCC and Kyoto) if the science is 'settled'. The best response to those who demand debate seems to be name calling.

If you want to pass cap and trade legislation, go back to the drawing board and find a way to convince the American people you have a case. You have not done this yet.

Before we talk about science, I love the environmental radicals that labels all those who don't agree with their position as "deniers". This, of course, an attempt to classify this scientific debate in the same framework as "Holocaust deniers". That's reprehensible rhetoric.

1. The bedrock driver of anthropogenic climate change is that CO2 change and temperature change have coincided, thus CO2 must be responsible for temperature change. Careful look at the data shows temperature change occurs first, then CO2 change. See graph here: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

2. Climate change models have been designed to agree with past temperature data. They have done a very bad job of predicting what will happen, however. They can't explain that temperatures have decreased over the last 10 years although CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased.

The science is too long to discuss here, but open minded individuals should read the following: http://www.coyoteblog.com/Skeptics_Guide_to_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_v1.0.pdf

Let's discuss the issues using facts, not ad hominem attacks.