[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

From Scientific American of September 2006:

Over? Says whom, the editors?

Present levels of cabon dioxide - nearing 400 parts per million (ppm) in he earth's atmosphere - are higher than they have been at any time in the past 650.000 years and could easily surpass 500 ppm by the year 2050 without radical intervention.

Where is the proof that CO2 levels are the cause or even an indicator of Global Warming?
From Dr Linzen's Senate testimony;

Some problems with the IPCC would appear to stem from the media and advocacy groups.
The media reports rarely reflect what is actually in the Summary. The media generally replace the IPCC range of ‘possible’ temperature increases with ‘as much as’ the maximum – despite the highly unlikely nature of the maximum. The range, itself, assumes, unjustifiably, that at least some of the computer models must be correct. However, there is evidence that even the bottom of the range is an overestimate. (A recent study at MIT found that the likelihood of actual change being smaller than the IPCC lower bound was 17 times more likely than that the upper range would even be reached, and even this study assumed natural variability to be what computer models predicted, thus exaggerating the role of anthropogenic forcing.) The media report storminess as a consequence despite the admission in the summary of no such observed relation. To be sure, the summary still claims that such a relation may emerge – despite the fact that the underlying physics suggests the opposite. The media’s emphasis on increased storminess, rising sea levels, etc. is based not on any science, but rather on the fact that such features have more graphic impact than the rather small increases in temperature. People who have experienced day and night and winter and summer have experienced far greater changes in temperature, and retirement to the sun belt rather than the Northwest Territory represents an overt preference for warmth.

So we need some honest examination of what is likely to happen, with and without a human effort to control the climate.

Meanwhile, I have seen the lawyers interpreation of science. They claim areas such as PA were once so much warmer. They forget to mention where PA was located back then - on the equator.

Can you cite the "lawyers" claims of warmth and time frame?

To find contrarians, one finds simplist analysis from lawyers. Every science paper from the US government is now rewritten by White House lawyers. New rules. All environmental science papers must now be submitted to the White House for 'review'.

You left out government issued between all and environmental in the last sentence

And why do some here hype myths about volcanoes without providing any numbers - as only a lawyer would do? Exact same reasoning used to prove Saddam was planning to attack the US (which always was a lie) and that Saddam had WMDs (again in direct contradiction to numbers).

STOP IT. This has nothing to do with Saddam, WMDs or Viet Nam. Stick to the point, which is Global warming/weather/environment, please.

There is no doubt mankind is creating global warming.

Not true. Global warming is a natural cycle. The question is, how much is mankind contributing to Global warming and will it push the normal cyclic high beyond where it would normally peak?

And the nations that address the problem first will be the nations that sell and licenses all new products. Acid rain is a classic example. Whereas basic research on the topic was stifled in the US, the Germans moved agressively after acid rain was causing damage to the German's treasured Black Forest. Not only did Germany start reducing acid rain damage in the Black Forest. Now Americans pay big time to the Germans for that technology on American fossil fuel plants.

That doesn't sound much like the statement a communist would make, does it UG. :p

Those who fear innovation - lawyers who also must rewrite science papers to protect the status quo. A champion skeptic here who almost single handedly and therefore accurately challenged obvious Saddam and WMD myths also smells another rat from the same lying administration.

You weren't the only one that doubted the WMD claim, just one of the few that thought it had any bearing on whether there would be an invasion.
Now, stick to the point, please.

Numbers and scientists now have the slam dunk facts that prove global warming is traceable to mankind. Only a fool would think the rare volcanoe does not output what billions of machine create constantly in mass quantitied every day.

Bullshit Alarm~ding ding ding. Slam dunk? Hardly. Can you back that wild claim up? Everything I read tells me they still don't know how all the pieces of information fit the puzzle. No two computer models can't come up with the same scenario.
Again, Senate testimony

Claims that man has contributed any of the observed warming (ie attribution) are based on the assumption that models correctly predict natural variability. Such claims, therefore, do not constitute independent verifications of models. Note that natural variability does not require any external forcing – natural or anthropogenic.
Large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous. Neither do they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramatic phenomena like El Niños, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intraseasonal oscillations – all of which are well documented in the data.

I don't know if your claim that more super computers are needed, if we don't have the parameters to compute, but it can't hurt.

From the Editors of Scientific American: And those who meet the challenge will be the new wealthy economies. Lawyers and MBAs who routinely fear innovation will even rewrite science papers to distort reality.

As I see it, we don't fully understand how the earth and it's climate actually work. How, and how far, it cycles and at what frequency. Therefore it would be foolish not to try to reduce our(mankind's) impact on the environment, just because we don't know. That said I also realize there'll never be complete agreement from everyone.
Leadership? Bush isn't concerned with anything that won't have a major impact before 2009, that's the next guy's problem.
Probably the only way something will happen is if someone takes up the cause as a campaign issue, gets elected and the voters hold him to his promises. What's the chance of that?