http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Here’s a tip from a layman. The token answer, “Experts all agree so if you don’t then you’re an idiot” doesn’t really help anyone understand anything, let alone believe it. If there is proof or convincing data, just share it and let it speak for itself. If you haven’t seen the evidence, maybe you shouldn’t say that it’s there or try to make your claims heavier by referring to anonymous “experts”.

And yes … I’m talking to Environmentalists and Christians!

anywho, the only global warming i am sure will happen one day will come from the ultimate controller of the climate, who created it in the first place. take a gander at Revelation 8:7 for some global warming even Algore won’t be able to fight.

Of course people affect their environment. The big question is, how much influence do humans have, keeping in perspective the fact that climate has changed in the past without any indication that people did it. Last I checked, humans had no input into solar activity or asteroid trajectory or changes in the planet’s magnetic flux.

One of the most interesting aspects of this whole political (and yes, it is political-religious, not merely scientific) brouhaha is that those who advocate speedy action to maintain some sort of staus quo in the environment are also the people who are so adamant about evolution outside the control of God. On one hand, they say change is random, inevitable, and is our destiny. On the other hand, they say it is predictable, capable of being thwarted, and the planet should be shaped according to their personal desires.

Me, I’m curious as to what the final shape of the change will be. Please don’t stop it, since I’m off on a grand adventure in human history.

I would be sincerely interested in hearing more about what you’ve read, especially anything about the historically cyclical nature of temps causing the CO2 rises.

I’m also passing on a rather random collection of links that came to mind based on the most recent events in the climate change dialogue (i.e., the NASA director’s comments). Two blogs I’ve found to be fairly balanced and objective ( i.e., as a lay person, they seem to question as much as they declare and aren’t solely about climate change) are Prometheus (through UC Boulder - the comments are often as interesting as the entries) and scienceblogs.com (which brings together entries from I think 40 different science blogs).

1. Some graphs, which you’ve probably seen

2. The article that prompted the recent comments from NASA’s director

3. Highlights from a paper from scientists at NASA and Columbia

4. One response to NASA’s director

5. Another - the comments are as interesting as the article and hit both sides of the spectrum (one of the reasons I like this blog). Despite the reservations expressed, the point is that the debate is not about if it’s an issue, but how much of an issue it is.

6. National Academy of Engineering - it’s not about global warming, but that will perhaps make you less worried that it’s a political discussion. These are scientists discussing the scientific consequences of human carbon dioxide emissions (among other topics).

At the end of the 1990’s, the American Geophysical Union endorsed government action to address climate change. Some groups - CEI etc. - said this was the politicization of a previously-respected scientific organization. Others pointed out the historical track record of the organization, the nature of the evidence, and the further support this provided for the need to do something. A quick google search will turn up more about the organization and its recommendations.