I'm a global warming ignoramus--enlighten me, please!

[Habibi]

I'm almost afraid to ask this, since global warming has been on my radar but not in a "will read anything about it" way--I tend to accept that it's a serious issue that is being ignored by this administration. But, I haven't really spent much time or brain power on the facts. Is it really a matter of opinion? Or are there some objective studies/interpretations that I can read that will help me understand what the situation really is?

Thanks for your help. I'm part of an email distribution list on which one individual cites essays from scientists that dispute the gravity of the problem. I don't want to just knee-jerk dismiss his citations; I want some real information. If nothing else, this guy is inspiring me to educate myself, but I don't know where to start.

[NMDemDist2]

1. lots of articles in the Enviorment/Energy forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=115

[Agony]

2. Here is a place to start. UCS

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a reasonable place for information. Of course George Will would not agree.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-faq.html

I'll post some more as I have time,

[newyawker99]

21. Hi Agony!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[MnFats]

3. Mother Jones mag cover story a couple months ago...

...will try to find exact date...

[Habibi]

4. Bless you all

I'll read through your suggestions. I just got kind of whacked out and didn't know where to go first. I suspect this person will not accept anything from these resources but at least I'll be more informed my own damn self.:hi:

[Agony]

8. Well then, try AAAS out on him.

the current issue of Science, probably the most respected peer reviewed general science journal in the US has a feature on ice. It is pretty heavy reading (fascinating, really) but you can't get much closer to the real debate (about the details, not whether or not global warming is a phenomena)

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/ice/

some places you go on the science website require an account but there is lot of free stuff too, sorry

[upi402]

10. I used to try to debate this with freeps

It was very frustrating. I always tried to find one-sentence support for a claim I was making. I never could do it justice.

Even the progressively bigger hole in the ozone pics were not evidence to them.

One thing, the BushCo has energy lobbyists editing-down real gov't scientists' reports of global warming facts. You'd think a scientist would be appointed to do that, but not with BushCo.

[Lorien]

5. Ask you emailing friend which PEER REVIEWED scientific journal

has published his "scientist's" essays. According to the Utne Reader (Jan-Feb 2006 edition) NO article has EVER been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that either cast doubt on the reality of global warming or that human activity causes global warming. However, 53% of all MSM reports on global warming have cast doubt (in an effort to appear "fair and balanced") citing paid corporate "scientists" who are about as interested in knowing the truth about global warming as BushCo was in Iraq's WMDs.

[upi402]

13. Wow! That sounds almost like a F.A.I.R. report from Extra!

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting is great, and I loved Extra! -their quarterly journal which got me hopping mad a the corporate media since the early 90's. It was edifying.

[Habibi]

14. Ooh! I like that!

But I doubt that anything cited in Utne will impress him much. It's a fool's errand, I tell ya, but like I said, at least *I'll* be better informed.

Heh. I think I'll throw this at him anyway.

[Tommy_J]

6. My two cents...

Looking at the big picture, there absolutely no doubt the Earth will warm up. The optical properties of our atmosphere - its spectral transmissivity, absorptivity, and reflectivity are changing to become more like the windows in a greenhouse.

What is less certain is how the climate will change on a regional scale. For example, winters in UK have been cold recently. Many who wish to discredit global warming try to confuse the issue by pointing at weather patterns that are cooler than usual. Watch out for that.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Here's some more

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=active&cof=AWFID:558a065e2b806dc5%3BL:%3BLH:75%3BLW:370%3BBGC:white%3BT:%23000000%3BLC:%230000CC%3BVLC:%23800080%3BALC:%230000CC%3BGALT:%23008000%3BGFNT:%23000000%3BGIMP:%23000000%3BDIV:%230000CC%3BLBGC:white%3BAH:center%3BS:http://www.commondreams.org%3B&domains=www.commondreams.org&sitesearch=www.commondreams.org&q=climate+change&spell=1

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. Here's some articles I ran across today and posted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=758422&mesg_id=758857

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=758422&mesg_id=758422

The MSNBC article had many informative links I thought.

I hope this helps get you started.

[Earth_First]

11. Global Warming does not exist

Didn't you get the memo?

[anarch]

12. it's probably a bad idea to buy land on the coast,

and this is from ABC News.

[babylonsister]

15. Here's Maher's 1/2 comical, mostly serious words of wisdom:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=749634

[Speck Tater]

16. There's only one thing you need to know...

...The human race is doomed to extinction because our power over nature is exceeded only by our stupidity and arrogance. Believing that we can do anything we want, we will succeed in destroying the planet. Ten thousand years from now, as other life forms are beginning to recover, there won't be a trace of the human race left on the planet.

[Strelnikov_]

17. Current Time Cover Story Does A Good Job Of Covering The Basics

Significant understanding of the changes to expect in the near term has been made in the last year, and it does not look good.

Be Worried, Be Very worried
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html

[Bushwick Bill]

18. The Pentagon is worried.

Everytime some nitwit argues that global warming is spin created by scientists who seek funding, point them to these articles.

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html

In October of 2003, the Pentagon published a report on abrupt climate change.1 Its authors were by Peter Schwartz, a CIA consultant and former head of planning at the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.2 Their task was to assess the likelihood of abrupt climate change within the next twenty years. They were then supposed to develop a scenario of the possible consequences should abrupt climate change occur starting in 2004. Finally, they were to make recommendations to the President based on their study: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security.

A few copies were printed and circulated around the Pentagon, which heavily censored the report and is now downplaying its significance.3 It remained effectively buried and all but forgotten until copies were leaked to the media, first to Fortune Magazine,4 and then to The Observer.5 The Pentagon has rightfully pointed out that this is a speculative report; they are not expecting abrupt climate change to begin in the year 2004. Schwartz and Randall are exploring a risk scenario, such as the Pentagon and the CIA draw up all the time – what would happen if the Russians launched a nuclear attack this year; what would happen if California suffered the big one, etc. But the real importance of the report lies in the statement of probability and in the authors' recommendations to the President and the National Security Council.

While no statistical analysis of probability is given in the report as it has been released (any such statistical analysis would most likely be classified), the authors state that “the plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher than most of the scientific community and perhaps all of the political community is prepared for.”6 They say that instead of asking whether this could happen, we should be asking when this will happen. They conclude: “It is quite plausible that within a decade the evidence of an imminent abrupt climate shift may become clear and reliable.”7

From such a shift, the report claims, utterly appalling ecological consequences would follow. Europe and Eastern North America would plunge into a mini-ice age, with weather patterns resembling present day Siberia. Violent storms could wreak havoc around the globe. Coastal areas such as The Netherlands, New York, and the West coast of North America could become uninhabitable, while most island nations could be completely submerged. Lowlands like Bangladesh could be permanently swamped. While flooding would become the rule along coastlines, mega-droughts could destroy the world's breadbaskets. The dust bowl could return to America's Midwest. Famine and drought would result in a major drop in the planet's ability to sustain the present human population. Access to water could become a major battleground – hundreds of millions could die as a result of famine and resource wars. More than 400 million people in subtropical regions will be put at grave risk. There would be mass migrations of climate refugees, particularly to southern Europe and North America. Nuclear arms proliferation in conjunction with resource wars could very well lead to nuclear wars.8 And none of this takes into account the effects of global peak oil and the North American natural gas cliff. Not pretty.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/041304_climate_change_pt1.html

I also think this is a good article about the basics of how global warming could lead to an ice age.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

[ms liberty]

19. " An Inconvenient Truth"...mark your calendar...

It is a full length documentary, being distributed by Paramount, which will begin showing in theaters on May 26.The people who did it followed Al Gore around, and filmed him giving his presentation on global warming. Some DU'ers have attended his presentations - it's supposed to be outstanding. The documentary debuted at Sundance and got excellent reviews.

[Habibi]

20. Here's the main article cited by this guy:

http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cinnov/31/i05/html/05vp.html

(Although he actually cited an article about this essay, not the original.) I did some googling and found this essay widely propagated through the net. Of course, because it supports the idea that human activity is not responsible for increased C02 emissions! A response to it appears here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

--but it's pretty heavy-duty reading and I don't follow it well.

The rest of his citations were mostly from WorldNutDaily and FR (and "Capitalism Magazine" fer god's sake), so I don't feel any obligation to respond to those. This one's a little more credible, to me, anyway.

But thanks, everyone. I'll be reading the links. I don't have any hope of converting this guy, but maybe I can get him to acknowledge that science is more useful when it isn't politicized. Or something. Nah, probably not.