... otherwise, the few hundred peer reviewed articles summarized and referenced in this pre-Copenhagen summary showing, once again, that climate change is worse than the uber-conservative IPCC has been estimating might really scare me. I mean, what if it were really true that these few hundred recent peer-reviewed articles show that:


Boy ... if there really were several hundred recent peer-reviewed articles to show these things, we'd really be toast.

Oh wait ... there are. You've just read the executive summary. Don't believe it? Download the full report. After that, feel free to wade through the hundreds of articles in the references section, downloading whichever ones you question and reading them in their entirety.

Here's that URL again in case you missed it up top.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report

Footnote: Do you think that the leaked emails prove anything about these few hundred articles? Well, let's look carefully at what even the very few selected emails quoted out of context by a bunch of literal thieves with an agenda show. Nothing in those emails indicates a global conspiracy of climate scientists to get rich and take over the world.

Read these two articles on the subject. I think they make clear what the emails do and more importantly do not show.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

Im sorry.
Iv seen a failing in ALL of this.
It used to be SPRAY paint and hair spray(and such) were causing the problem..
NOW they point to CO2..and they keep forgetting the OTHER chemicals we have in the air.
Is this the ONLY thing they can measure??

Another point is that we have the ability to PULL the CO2 from the air and convert it to other materials, SOME that are useful..INCLUDING FUEL.
the problem is MONEY.  the RICH dont want to do ANYTHING that costs money and has NO return for the first few years...they want a RETURN of investment NOW..

Actually, we measure a lot of things, SO2, CO2, CFCs, PCBs, mercury, fertilizer runoff, etc. The reason you don't hear about CFCs anymore is because we listened to the scientists and banned their use. The reason you don't hear as much about acid rain (though it is still a problem to a smaller degree than it once was) is because we listened to the scientists and created a cap and trade program to reduce the SO2 from coal fired power plants. The reason you still hear about PCBs and mercury is because we haven't done much about them.

The reason you hear so much about CO2 (and its equivalents in methane and other GHGs) is because it is the number two problem on the planet today. The reason you don't hear about the number one problem is because it's taboo to challenge religion. God said be fruitful and multiply. To point out that, if s/he exists, s/he only gave us a finite planet on which to have an infinite population would be sacrilege. So, even most environmentalists won't touch the subject.


Pulling CO2 and converting it into other materials is easy. We call the best devices for the task trees. Making fuel out of it would keep it in circulation, which would be better than making more of it, but not as good as sequestering it.

I agree about the powers that be. The rich don't even want to do anything that would make money for them in the long term. They're short-sighted. They see this quarter's balance sheet as the most important thing in the universe.

I would rather go past sequestration..
and USE what is there.
the debate with sequestration is a STRANGE one..
as useing the WOOD/plants is supposed to release it into another form, and back into the environment ALSO.
Either with processing, or just BURNING.
I dont care if we gather it up and USe it as a SOLID material..Its better then MANY others...
It would be cool to add it to a cement solution and HARDEN concrete..

Sequestration is important, whether we do it or let the plants do it for us. Since we have already increased the CO2 level from 280 to 383 and counting, we need to put some back. We've been burning plants (coal, oil, and gas) like there's no tomorrow ... and indeed there will be no tomorrow, at least for humans and many other species I prefer to our own, if we keep it up. Yes, it can be reused and put back into plants. But, we're not talking about CO2 from today's plant matter, though some is, most is from millions of years old plant matter. And, that's another matter completely.


There are possible ways to make concrete from the carbon. That would be a great way to sequester it. Perhaps we could build pyramids out of the stuff. Until that technology is fully formed and until the architects and construction workers bless the properties of that concrete though, we have to do something. Read this article. We don't have time on our side. We've got to peak our carbon burning at 2015-2020 in order to have any effect. And, the longer we wait, the steeper our decline must be. If we don't peak by 2011, we have to completely stop producing CO2. If we peak at 2015 (just 5 years from now), we have to stop burning fossil fuel completely by 2047. That's an ambitious and unlikely goal. If we wait and peak at 2020, we must stop producing CO2 completely by 2040. Are we taking bets? I'm betting on human extinction since I see not much hope for peaking fossil fuel usage even by 2020.

I would think that we would have the ability at THIS TIME, to just Filter the air, and grab ALL the excess materials we could/would need..
we just need a purpose.

As tot he concrete, thats EASY...FREEWAYS..  Carbon should harden them up VERY WELL, and make them Last years longer then current Asphalt only..  Even if it DARKENED the concrete, it would be great in winter, as it would accelerate Ice melt.

Just grabbing the CO2 seems to be more difficult in practice than I would expect. Trees seem to be a wonderful device for the purpose though.

As for the concrete, it's not about the technical feasibility. It's about the political change allowing for the use of the new concrete as a replacement for the old. Someone first has to prove that it has the same or better characteristics to the old. Someone has to approve its use for any building project. Building codes must change. It's a royal pain in the ass.

And, no one seems to want to survive as a species have the will to do anything.

First off, I don't think that these guys are out to get rich...I'd have to look at their stock portfolio (and the companies they're betting on) to determine that.  I do, however, think that “take over the world” isn't too far out of their grasp.  People are motivated by a few things, money, power, politics.  I think that power and politics are right up these guys alley.  I remember a few years ago a story (I can't remember what it was) about a bunch of scientists that were baffled and outraged that Bush wouldn't go along with their recommendations and findings.  That is power, the power to have absolute influence over the politics of one of the greatest nations in history.  When they weren't listened to, they threw a fit...probably because it was the first time someone told them to take a hike.

A long time ago a guy named Setterfield published a peer reviewed paper on the speed of light slowing down, and  folks in (and out) of his field came out of the woodwork to discredit him since he happened to attend church when he had the chance.  The boiled down argument was that he was a Bible thumper trying to find evidence of a young earth, hence a creationist, and his paper was rubbish.  They questioned his motivations, and said his research was biased...so why is so bad that I question the motivation of climate research and call it biased?

Referencing published works in favor of your argument is a waste of your time.  Find something better to do.  If I wanted to give away a precious hour of my life, I'd counter them with equally valid peer review articles.  The reality is that published works are not carved in stone for a reason...because so many of them contradict one another!

There is no doubt in my mind that many aspiring researchers were concerned environmentalist that felt that they could “make a difference” by choosing their field of research.  While their motives are suspect, (I might go so far to say) their science “may” be good.  However, the conclusions drawn may be hasty.  Throughout history it has taken decades for the science of a matter to be fleshed out and accepted by governing bodies.  Global warming was only recently brought center stage in '03, I see no reason why we should spend trillions of dollars, succumb to a global governing body, and place fantastic new restrictions on the American consumer.  What a great idea in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930's!

It took 20 years before someone finally decided to look into Setterfield's work, and it will probably be another 20 before it's widely accepted.  Alarmists have cried wolf too many times, warning us of the new ice age in the 70's, then the hole in the ozone in the 80's (spf 2000), then acid rain (rain drops fizzling the flesh of animals, thanks Captain Planet), and now global warming.  Let's give it a few years, and let the economy/market go it's way (the EV-1 fell flat on it's face 10 years ago, but now the push is for all electric vehicles, you should  celebrate that!), then let's re-evaluate where we are, and what we have to do.

I think I'll take a crack at the CRU emails and “context” when I'm not drop dead tired.

The problems you have with scientists is the SAME that you had long ago with the British Sci foundation..
1. a scientist like to EAT.
2. Scientists DONT have money, and NEED to be paid so they can DO/PROVE SOMETHING.
3. 1 person, 1 money, JUST dose NOT get things done.  When you Work to FEED yourself OUTSIDE the Science you are TRYING to prove..

I dont want to get into the EPA, and the REST of the Gov. being CUT in half and STILL trying to do something.