Les Jones

When James Taylor is not taking money from tobacco companies to tell you that second-hand smoke isn't really a problem, he is taking global warming out of context.

In February 2007 AMS (American Meteorological Society) published this about the uncertainties of global warming:

Final remarks
Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.

Policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of the impacts of climate change. Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

If global warming is caused by humans, why are the polar ice-caps melting on Mars?

We may have influenced global warming slightly. Who is influencing it Mars.
http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/feb02/NN_MarsCC.html

And of course Jupiter has been showing signs of global warming for the past 300 years - since the formation of the Red Spot. And there are signs that a second one is forming as well.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

But these inconvenient facts don't let the communists (or the university professors - is there much difference between those 2 groups today?) rail against the evil corporations and lobby for global control of the economy in order to save the world from those evil capitalists, and free market types.

The AMS remarks seem like weak tea. Sure, global warming is happening, but how much of it is human-caused, and how much can really be stopped? That's the whole question.

I tend to go along with this idea:

Kyoto emission caps are justified only if all five of the following are true:

1. global warming exists
2. global warming would be harmful
3. global warming is man-made, as a result of increased CO2 emissions
4. Kyoto caps would significantly reduce emissions
5. the costs of imposing Kyoto caps are less than the benefits

Granted the first one's true. For the sake of argument, let's say the second and third items are true. That still leaves an awful lot of speculation and uncertainty for any country to impose caps on themselves. I expect most of the Kyoto signatories to bail out in 2012, since so many of them aren't meeting their goals anyway.

"Policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of the impacts of climate change. Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life."

It's the "will" in the first sentence, which doesn't mean the same thing as "may", that puts me off my lunch here, Jake. Nothing more than sanctimonious finger pointing, and I am one of many who is sick of it.

You are clearly pulling another one of the "precautionary principle" jabs that isn't full of anything other than hot air. My bets are on you being part of yet another collectivist voting block who's willing to force your agenda down my throat, by force of law, supposedly for my own good. Thanks, but no thanks. I've seen what that looks like from afar, and I don't need any.

Furthermore, the conclusion that you are quoting has little to base itself on when the scientific theory is applied to it, as accurate modeling can not be made of the situation. End of story, and I will NOT entertain anything to the contrary, as the crap that Gal Whore claims is so convincing is nothing short of him and his goons flat out manipulating the data and variables, and it's been proven that he's done so.

In short, take your Global Warming agenda and sit on it, or preach it to your friends who will listen.

For those who believe in man-made Global Warming, unless you are walking you are a hypocrite. Are you walking Jake? I didn't think so.