Now Playing at reason.tv: The Great Global Warming Debate featuring Ron Bailey, Fred Smith, and Lynne Kiesling!

Click here to see video of one of the great panels from last fall's Reason in DC conference: reason science correspondent Ron Bailey, Competitive Enterprise Institute president Fred L. Smith, Jr., and Knowledge Problem blogger and Northwestern economist Lynne Kiesling duking it out over free-market-friendly approaches to remediating the effects of global warming.

Comments

[Lost_In_Translation]

Fuck the polar bears

[Stevo Darkly]

That's a helluva striking photo -- very effectively conveys the sense of polar bears as stranded on shrinking islands of ice.

Very powerful "propoganda" image.

[Chris Potter]

Mr Darkly,

As if the ice caps never used to melt before the 20th century.

[Colonel_Angus]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is bullshit. The global climate has been changing naturally throughout earth's history and will continue to do so.

[Taktix?]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is bullshit. The global climate has been changing naturally throughout earth's history and will continue to do so.

I, for one, am not surprised. If a mass of the population believes the earth is only 6k-years-old, then AGW ins't that extreme...

[Zeb]

While there may be legitimate questions as to the extent that human actions contribute to global warming, there is no rational basis to say that the idea it total bullshit. You are being as idiotic as any climate alarmist is. Pointing out that ice caps have melted before and that climate changes naturally in no way refutes the idea that human activities are influencing the rate and extent to which the climate is likely to change in the near future.

In any case, the question that needs to be asked is what are we going to do about the consequences of changing climate and rising sea levels, not whose fault it is or whether liberals want to control your life.

[squarooticus]

I have no first-hand basis for knowing whether AGW exists or not. Given what I've read, I suspect not... but that's an opinion based on others' opinions and research.

Regardless of whether AGW exists, I oppose all government efforts to battle AGW, because they inevitably involve coercion of some sort, and I reject any limitation on my freedom that doesn't involve the person or persons wronged bringing a suit against me for my negligence or malfeasance and proving to an independent arbitrator that I am liable for damages.

In other words: just because you can't prove in court that my actions are damaging your property doesn't mean you should be able to unleash your thugs against me as an alternative. The acceptance of coercion of this form makes a mockery of justice.

Government-controlled schemes to fight AGW are simply another power grab and another form of robbery by the criminal gangs in charge of the first world, and most everyone (including our supposed libertarian columnist) is falling for it. I would honestly rather let the tort lawyers take care of it.

[R C Dean]

While there may be legitimate questions as to the extent that human actions contribute to global warming, there is no rational basis to say that the idea it total bullshit.

Generally, the proponents of a hypothesis are required to adduce some evidence to support it. Indeed, the rational response to any hypothesis is to assume that its total bullshit until it proves out.

[Chris Potter]

My comment was in regard to the picture above...polar bears have mounted small, melting blobs of ice every June since the end of the last ice age. It's just a misleading photograph.

It's the same reaction as I had last January, when Brian Williams was showing a clip of Antarctic glacier edges crumbling while talking about how it highlighted the progression of global warming. I wanted to grab him by the neck and say, "It's SUMMER there, you retard!"

[Zeb]

Now, you can't honestly say that there has been no evidence put forward to support the idea of anthropogenic global warming. You are just making yourself look like an ass.
It is pretty hard to deny that human activities produce more CO2, methane and others than there would be without a very large industrialized population. So, unless you are going to reject the validity of the greenhouse effect, how can you deny that people are very likely having a non-negligible effect on the climate.

What really annoys me about people taking this "it's all BS" line is that two issues are conflated. It is a totally separate question from the science of climate change as to whether the government should be able to force one kind of reaction or another. It is quite possible to accept the reality of AGW and still to reject the proposition that the government needs lots of new power to fix it. The science is there and it is ridiculous to deny that there is any evidence at all for AGW. I am not about to believe that it is all made up as a liberal communist conspiriacy to take away our gas guzzlers and ruin the economy.

[the innominate one]

zeb, thoughtful, well-reasoned comments on a anthropogenic global-warming thread?

that'll never work. stick to ad hominem arguments.

[Johnny G]

I seemed to agree more with Fred Smith than the other panelists.
Regardless of whether or not global climate change as started by man is true or false (I happen to think it's a bit more complicated), the real harm by internal combustion engines and industrial pollution and alike are more down to earth than up in the atmosphere. What I mean is; acid rain, mercury in water and soil and whatever kind of poisons one puts in the atmosphere, all effect someone (or some creature) in some indirect way. Does this not go against my libertarian philosophy of do what you want as long as you do not harm others? I mean, man made global warming is REALISTICALLY just a theory. By the scientific method just that (the same could be said for evolution, but short of hopping in a delorian equipped with a flux capacitor, we'll never see evolution actually happen. I still chose to believe it even though I can't recreate evolution in a lab)What I'm saying is, man-made global warming
is still not absolutely certain, but all these other nature-harming effects of man that I mention have been proven! I'm not saying lock everyone up who has harmed the environment by driving, nor do I believe in any kind of planned economy. Just free up the energy markets. The economy will naturally take care of itself. Look who I'm telling THAT to...

[the innominate one]

...even though I can't recreate evolution in a lab...

wrong

[Neu Mejican]

Zeb,

Your comments reflect the difference between a libertarian reaction to scientific evidence of a problem that impacts in the public sphere...(c.f., smoking, drunk driving) and the more common reaction on these boards which is to deny, deny, deny that a problem really exists because then you might have to talk about government policy involving that problem.

Of course the libertarian argument should be: EVEN IF this is a problem, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION BECAUSE....

Much more productive.

Congrats.

[R C Dean]

So, unless you are going to reject the validity of the greenhouse effect, how can you deny that people are very likely having a non-negligible effect on the climate.

See, its when you slip in that "non-negligible" term that you get yourself in trouble. I'd perfectly willing to say that human activity may be having some kind of neglible effect on the climate.

CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. The dominant one is water vapor, followed by methane. Any number of natural events (hurricanes, volcanos) can pump huge amounts of CO2 into the air. The earth managed innumerable warming/cooling cycles before industrial civilization, including one that was more "severe" than anything seen to date or even projected by the less alarmist AGW models.

These facts leave me pretty comfortable with my extreme skepticism towards the AGW hypothesis.

AGW looks to me like a hypothesis built backwards, from the conclusion that mankind must be impacting climate. The question then becomes how? By emitting greenhouse gases, perhaps? What greenhouse gas is a byproduct of industrial civilization? CO2! voila!

When the paleoclimatologists can explain the underlying mechanism for climate cycles, and the AGW modellers can come up with a model that has some predictive power, then I will start taking it seriously. Is that so much to ask?

[R C Dean]

Mr Darkly,

As if the ice caps never used to melt before the 20th century.

Mr. Potter, I suspect you are unacquainted with Mr. Darkly's slyly mocking style of humor.

[Windtell]

This deserves to be in every climate arguement I think. I think we're changing the Earth, I just don't think that it really matters that much myself. We think us and our damage to the planet is so important. Like something has never changed it before.

"George Carlin's "The Planet Is Fine"

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?

I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while."

[Neu Mejican]

RC Dean,

I know you know this but...

(hurricanes, volcanos) can pump huge amounts of CO2 into the air.

ignores scale.

Human CO2 production dwarfs that from these natural sources at around 100 to 1.

If you are gonna use the "negligible" impact argument, it is important to compare to sources with larger outputs rather than much, much smaller outputs.

[Neu Mejican]

RC Dean,

Not forgetting, of course, that volcanic activity has an overall cooling effect...

For some reason I doubt you have the training to critique the claims made by climate scientists in any serious way. But maybe I am wrong.

[Colonel_Angus]

Right now I am in an area of the midwest with land formations from glaciers long ago (climate was fucking cold), as well as deposits of fossil fuels indicating swamps and forests and wetlands (fucking hot climate). All of this happened before the industrial age, and even before humans. Greenland was warmer at one time, when it was inhabited by the Vikings. There is geographical evidence like this all over the world where the climate has changed dramaticaly. You may find sea shells lying around in the middle of Florida.

The atmosphere is made of "greenhouse gasses" that absorb heat. Oxygen, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen, water vapor, as well as dust particles. Carbon dioxide is released by a wide range of natural occurrences such as volcanoes, forest fires, breathing, and all dead rotting organisms. It also evaporates from bodies of water as they warm. This can be caused by climates changing over long periods of time, or more rapidly during storms.

So while I agree that human activity can contribute to slightly higher amounts of carbon dioxide and such, it is extremely miniscule compared to what happens naturally. So what is the point of any effort to reduce it if the greatest effect on climate people can have is probably less than two hundred years when climate periods may last thousands of years? To me it makes more sense to acknowledge the fact that the climate will change naturally no matter what and prepare for the inevitable.

[Neu Mejican]

Colonel Angus,

So what is the point of any effort to reduce it if the greatest effect on climate people can have is probably less than two hundred years when climate periods may last thousands of years? To me it makes more sense to acknowledge the fact that the climate will change naturally no matter what and prepare for the inevitable.

The main problem presented by AGW is not so much the change, but the rate of that change. Rapid climate changes are the ones that wipe out species. Often large numbers of species.

There is lots of evidence for these mass die outs in earth's history.

Large animals (like humans) tend to do poorly when these events occur.

But I guess if we bring one upon ourselves we deserve what we get.

[Neu Mejican]

Colonel Angus,

it is extremely miniscule compared to what happens naturally.

This is not factually accurate...the current rates of increase are more rapid than those that occur naturally...much more rapid.

[crimethink]

Human CO2 production dwarfs that from these natural sources at around 100 to 1.

Bullshit. Complete, unadulterated bullshit.

Every single animal on earth, including those in the sea, is emitting CO2. Even decaying organic matter gives off greenhouse gases. There is absolutely no way that human burning of fossil fuels emits even close to the amount of CO2 produced by natural sources.

[Anonymoose.]

This would work so much better as audio.

[Colonel_Angus]

While a volcano may temporarily cause cooler weather, the gasses released from it will last much longer.

[Neu Mejican]

Crimethink,

The word "these" in my sentence had specific referents...try again.

The balance between industrial and natural c02 is a different subject.

Colonel Angus,
I was, actually, referring to the overall effect of volcanic output on the lower atmosphere...The C02 from volcanoes is a negligible factor.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011128035329.htm

[Neu Mejican]

Crimethink,

FWIW,

I believe the conservative estimate of the ratio of human to natural sources of c02 is something like 1:30

But, again, this is a red herring.
The issue of AGW is about what is driving the current change in co2 concentrations.

For that, the human factors are almost entirely responsible.

[Neu Mejican]

Crimethink,

I find this tidbit interesting.
Maybe you will too...

Yet, the present day atmosphere contains less than 3x1018 g of CO2, and compared to this number the total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 1x1018 g certainly is significant....[and latter a comment] The real point is that most of the CO2 outgassed over earth's history has been sequestered by natural processes. There is currently about 3x10g^18 of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we have pumped about 1x10g^18 of it out, or one third of the current level. That is far from being insignificant.

http://science-community.sciam.com/blog-entry/Sciam-Observations/Anthropogenic-Climate-Change-Myth/300004210

I will note that the person making that comment seems to have ignored absorbtion of c02 in the last two-hundred years, but I think it makes the point...

[Sam Grove]

For that, the human factors are almost entirely responsible.

Not proven.

There is evidence that warming leads CO2.

There is evidence that solar magnetic cycles are a close match to climate temperature variations.

Warming has been measured, thus the fact of warming is evident. But the cause, there is reason for retaining a skeptical view.
There is also the possibility that our impact on the ocean may be an unsuspected factor.

[Chris Potter]

I will note that the person making that comment seems to have ignored absorbtion of c02 in the last two-hundred years, but I think it makes the point...

It's a pretty major defect in his argument. He's implying that 1/3 of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere originated from human activity. The vast, vast majority of that CO2 has already been absorbed along with the naturally-produced CO2 over the years, so only a tiny fraction of currently existing CO2 originated from human activity.

[Virgil]

I am a bit surprised and very disappointed that Reason would use the 'polar bears trapped on the melting ice' photo to advertise their global warming debate. That photo was already debunked as taken during Northern hemisphere summer, when ice floe melting is a common, natural occurrence. It does NOT provide ANY evidence of 'global warming'.
(But then, there ain't much evidence for it anyway. I am not a denier, but I am a skeptic, because I'm a scientist.)

[waldo]

What an idiotic arguments put forward here, not in the least by mr. windtell.

There have been major changes in climate in the past millions of years, however, then humans didn't live so widespread and densely populated around the earth. Seelevels have risen and icecaps have moved over Europe because of climatechange millions of years ago. But can we really allow that to happen again, today?

The people of Bangladesh, the Netherlands (which is 5 meters below seelevel), manhattan and numerous other regions next to the see are threatened by a rise in seelevel. This is not about polar bears but about people. Now, as has been proven, humans are an important reason in the current climate and as we cannot permit a major climate change today to happen, we must act upon it and try to stop it whether or not human activity is the most important or less important reason.

The question is how, not if!

Externalities are a known market failure and that should be dealt with. You Americans should take an example to Europe which does take up it's Kyoto-responsibilities and will try to go well beyond it trying to stop the climate from further deteriorating. I somewhere read that some persons are against trying to battle climatechange because it implies a breach on their freedom... Oh please, how does selling emission rights (as is Kyoto's system) infringe on your freedom?????

Externalities are a known market failure. So as thhe market can't supply the answer here, society has to.

[waldo]

And for the sceptics and scientists here: I am not saying humans are the only reason to climate change but I am saying humans play a role in it. One cannot deny that humans aren't having impact on the climate (be it sour rain or cutting of rainforests or destroying seeanymones or CO2 gasses).

Trying to reduce this effect on our planet is the true libertarian view of respecting the freedom of other's health (sour rain, smog,...), place to live (bangladesh, Netherlands,...) or economic activities (desertification, melting of glaciers of for example the Himalayan glaciers providing the Indus, Ganges or Yantze of water,...).

Respect of other's freedom should be at the very core of your attitude!

[waldo]

(little point to the Himalayan glaciers before anyone objects: yes there have been recent surges because of recent snowfall, the total count however stays on the bad side)

oh, and could I ask why so many people in the US are so skeptic about climate change but not in the least skeptic about GMO's?

[penxv]

This whole thing about carbon is kind of sad.

Hydrogen power from tap water already appears to be viable and has been for a while.

Daniel Dingel's water car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhXrvCCILw

(engine demo begins at 3:45 in)

and he isn't the first or the last guy to accomplish this.

[TallDave]

We don't know for sure if CO2 is causing global warming, but there are other reasons to get off fossil fuels.

Polywell fusion might -- might -- be the answer. It's clean and could be an order of magnitude cheaper than current electricity production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

The Navy has funded a team working on this now. There's a chance they may be greenlighted to build what they hope would be a $200M, 100MW prototype plant.

It's far from a certainty, but there's a real chance it could work.

Anyway the current team will report results by this summer. Something to keep an eye on.

[Francisco Torres]

Pointing out that ice caps have melted before and that climate changes naturally in no way refutes the idea that human activities are influencing the rate and extent to which the climate is likely to change in the near future.

No, it does not refute it, but it makes it more difficult to assert the idea of AGW without violating Occam's Razor.

[Francisco Torres]

[Sea levels] have risen and icecaps have moved over Europe because of climate[ ]change millions of years ago. But can we really allow that to happen again, today?

What an extraordinary thing to ask. How can man allow or not allow nature to change? At most, and if true (a long shot), man can only affect a change in climate, but from that to say we can allow something to happen is pure and unbridled conceit.

[NikFromNYC]

Burger reviews please? Too gamey? Lots of fish oil is good for you though. Babies bears better? Or just order seal burger? Come on guys, real reviews. What's with all this Sky if Falling politics, when I want non-CORN-FED (healthy) meat treats?

[jimmy]

what would the polar bears do if the ice never melted? i mean, they eat fish, right? if the arctic ocean was permanently socked in by ice like the GW folks think it is supposed to be, what would they eat? the area wouldn't be able to sustain any animal life whatsoever. they show us these pics and we are supposed to leap to ridiculous conclusions like "open water will kill the polar bears!"

[G L Lee]

Proof that man-made global warming does or does not exist? That's so easily debunked that the government school system should be sued for malpractice...
First, EVERY "model" that supports man-made global warming has strangely excluded the single most largest factor in temperatures... precipitation. Why? Because the alarmist "scientific" community cannot get their models to back their anti-capitalist agendas when rain/snow is added to the models. Second, it's hardly warmed, the warmest year of the last century being in 1938, the last (mini) ice age was in 1775, and no one in the meteorological world disagrees that all global temperature readings have been dipping since 2004. We're cooling AGAIN.

I'm old enough to remember the same (types of) voices screaming about the next ice age back in the 1970's, too. The first "scientist" to come out and proclaim a warming trend was the same exact person who, a few years prior, was the main harper of global cooling. the money ran out, so he created a new cash flow of tax payer dollars.

In a nutshell, there's no global warming because there's no proof. Simple as that.

Maybe if the government hadn't put the temperature gauges at the end of commercial jet runways (jet wash is H-O-T) and tucked into A/C unit housings, we'd get some accurate readings....

Oh, and while the North Pole "melts", the South Pole is having the largest growth of sheet ice ever recorded. The media refuses to relay that information on a daily basis... Why? Leftist conspiracy? Maybe a loose one; one intended to bring about bigger and bigger government. Why? Because they have some stupid idea that government equals security, when in fact, more government means more tyranny... much like the tyranny that will be brought upon us if we allow the mentally ill, like Al gore, to prevail.

[G L Lee]

Jimmy... The answer to your question is, "Baby seals."

[waldo]

a leftist conspiracy G L Lee? haha, you sound like in the interbellum when they talked about "the jewish conspiracy" or during the cold war the "communist conspiracy" or the more recent "gay conspiracy" of former minister of education of Poland stating it in European parliament (after being laughed at, he claimed there was European-gay conspiracy) 🙂 A little question: the economist also believes in global warming, is the economist now also part of the 'left wing conspiracy'?

And concerning your argument on the growing of sheet ice on the south pole: http://www.countercurrents.org/burbeck100108.htm
I don't answer to the other arguments as they are only populistic.

anyway, for each argument there is a counterargument and as we are not scientists or climatologists, I'd refer to the precautionary principle to say we'd better do something about it and discuss what the best way is to combat it. Thousands of non-governmental ways are possible, why not use those instead of getting stuck in total opposition to measures while seeing the growth of governmental measures you don't seem appropriate.

Fight the possible cause not the impossible.

[Neu Mejican]

The vast, vast majority of that CO2 has already been absorbed along with the naturally-produced CO2 over the years, so only a tiny fraction of currently existing CO2 originated from human activity.

That doesn't necessarily follow from the evidence presented.

Total amount in atmosphere = X
Total man has introduced into the atmosphere over last 200 years = 1/3X
Amount of man-made CO2 absorbed = ?

We don't have all the important parts of the equation to say how much X would be different without human sources of co2.

Those who do have the information available, however, give credit to the current increases in co2 concentrations to human sources (c.f. the IPCC report on this exact issue).

[st4rbux]

"Large animals (like humans) tend to do poorly when these events occur. "

Not large animals with air-conditioning.

And did NeuMej assert a ratio of 100:1 (human to natural CO2), then revert to 1:30 AND call it a red herring? and THEN try to argue that natural and industrial CO2 is somehow different? If it's CO2, it's CO2, right -- one carbon, two oxygen? am I missing something? How does the source affect the impact it would have on the environment?

[Sam-hec]

Regarding the whole human output of CO2versus natural output. One must first put this in the context of fossil CO2 emmissions, as carbon from vegetation et al rots, releases, and reforms as vegetation; these emissions don't count, as they are not new sources of active carbon in the biosphere.

From the USGS:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"

Apparently the USGS has been part of the Great Leftist Conspiracy for a while now.

[Sam-Hec]

worth reading through:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

[Christiaan]

My main problems with Man Caused Global Warming are these:

1. The earths climate is in constant flux. It has never been and never will constant.
2. The earth has been warmer in recorded history (both the Roman and Medieval warming periods).
3. Historically there doesn't seem to be a correlation between CO2 and temperature. When there is a relation it is in fact the opposite of what you would think. ie The rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature.
4. The temperature has risen AND fallen in the last century alone even as man caused CO2 output has increased.
5. There is a much stronger correlation between solar activity and Temperature.
6. The man caused global warming theory tends to ignore any other possible causes.
7. The percentage of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is so small compared to the total amount of greenhouse gases as to not be able to create the difference in temperature that we are supposedly causing.
8. The earth is NOT warming up all over as one would expect if greenhouse gases were the main cause. It is in fact warming more in the Northern Hemisphere than in the south.
9. Oh, and there is NO consensus among scientists about the cause of climate change.

[wizard of oz books]

With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.