It doesn't matter what I say, you're hysteria has overcome your bungee cord connection to fact. For the record, I'm a liberal Democrat. It's become increasing clear that the scientific community - although fractured - is not entirely comfortable with the idea of anthropogenic global warming. While the jury is still out, it's important to not hand down a legislative sentence that is sure to effect world food prices, increase poverty and to be most hurtful to developing economies. You imply that too many scientists are shilling for oil companies. As I scientist, try getting a research grant without swearing allegiance to Al Gore's apocalyptic vision of climate circumstances.

Jersey Paul: "The bedrock driver of anthropogenic climate change is that CO2 change and temperature change have coincided,"

CO2 change and temperature change have historically coincided, yes - the correlation there is quite strong.

Jersey Paul: "thus CO2 must be responsible for temperature change."

Yes and no. Per the consensus global warming theory, CO2 is the primary initiating driver in man-made temperature change.

That however is not the same thing as saying that CO2 has always been the primary driver temperature change, and historically most if not all of the time it hasn't been. According to global warming theory CO2 has historically been a feedback driver with respect to global warming, not the initiating driver. WHich is to say, once the earth started to warm, CO2 released from the earth as a result created a feedback loop that re-enforced the warming cycle.

Jersey Paul: "Careful look at the data shows temperature change occurs first, then CO2 change.

Before the current warming trend that has been the case, yes. Again CO2 has historically been a feedback driver with respect to global warming, not the initiating driver.

Being a subscriber to Salon, a publication I respect, please stop with equating "carbon" to CO2. Hell, if carbon was what was in the upper atmosphere, in the form of soot, it would actually help fight global warming by blocking sunlight from reaching the surface of terra firma. It's not like that is going to happen anytime soon, though. Is it too hard to write "carbon dioxide?"

To repeat. It's not "carbon" that's causing the global warming problem. The problem is caused by CO2, one of the gasses released by burning fossil fuels that used to be sequestered for a very long time under the ground in the form of hydrocarbons. Burning up a tree releases much "younger" CO2 that for the most part, can't be blamed for an upset in the balance of gasses in the atmosphere.

Good article otherwise.

thedailyllama: "at least one Global Warming event occurred without human intervention."

Yup. Several have, in fact.

thedailyllama: "what is unique about this event that makes it possible to conclude it is caused exclusively by human activity?"

That's a misunderstanding on your part, thedailyllama -- the current global warming event is not "caused exclusively by human activity," and nor have climate scientists -- the vast majority of whom believe that man-made climate change is real and happening now -- asserted as much. Per the scientific consensus with respect to global warming, CO2 is the primary initiating driver, but there are other drivers as well, including other greenhouse gases, and, to a much smaller degree, the sun.

Picture worth 1000 words dept:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20020114/figure2m.gif

thedailyllama: "That is, unless it can be shown (by scientific comparison to a similar event) that this event is somehow uniquely different from past events, the conclusion that it is human induced is not logical."

It is shown to be different: as was explained in other, different posts by Mike Sulzer and myself, in this scenario CO2 is the initiating driver, as opposed to a feedback driver.

thedailyllama: "Now, given that there has been no similar event in the past (that is human activity involved in global warming) there is no basis for comparison, and thus the conclusion that this event is human caused is illogical."

By your "logic" here thedailyllama the belief that the atomic bomb would work too was "illogical."

The failure to make the transition from a fossil fuel economy will most definitely hand down poverty to us all. We are being held hostage, fed lies, and stretched thin to the breaking point by the forces of big oil. The benefits of change far outweigh the perils of not changing. Global climate change is irrelevent when one considers peak oil. (Please just look it up.)

As far as the history of ice ages and climate warming, we could wait for a catastrophic volcanic event which will cool the planet and bring on an ice age, if we don't bring ecological imbalances under control, some natural force will do it for us. The earth will remain, the question is do we want to force the destruction of a temperate and habitable planet through failing to make timely and necessary changes. Even if we make the changes, there are no guarantees, catastrophic changes may take us out anyway. I would rather say we try to live in a more balanced way with the planets ecosystem, rather than arrogantly and hubristically plundering without regard. Most assuredly, we will not be the last species to be made extinct.

Mike Sulzer: "In my opinion (and not everyone agrees), the modeling results are required to make the case completely convincing. So I think there is more work to be done,"

The thing is, the system is so complex that you need modeling to predict the future with respect to climate change with a substantive degree of scientific confidence. This will always be the case - you can't get around it, no matter how much more work is done.

Mike Sulzer: "but you do not have to be a weatherman..."

Indeed.

shilohcool: "It's become increasing clear that the scientific community - although fractured - is not entirely comfortable with the idea of anthropogenic global warming."

Once again (this time with feeling):

Per the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other national science academies too:

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