Global warming, whatever the source, would move Earth climate closer to geological norms. There are clear indications that it may bring real positives to human lives.

>Hi Chris
>
>I rarely find myself agreeing with Jake, but the following links show that the current rise in temperatures are in the norm in terms of geologic history.
>
>http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html
>http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
>
>I especially like the quote from the Nova story:
>
>"One of the clearest signs that elevated levels of greenhouse gases can result in warming comes from an ice core taken near the Russian Vostok station in Antarctica. This graph tracks temperature and atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from the present back to about 160,000 years ago. (This represents about 11,350 feet of ice accumulation.) The graph clearly shows how a rise in gases will mean a rise in global temperature (though whether rising gases trigger rising temperatures, or vice versa, remains unknown)."
>
>The authors start off by reporting that "...elevated levels of greenhouse gasses can result in warming..", then go on to note, "though whether rising gases trigger rising temperatures, or vice versa, remains unknown". It isn't really clear whether CO2 causes warming or if warming allows more CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
>I think humans are doing a pretty good job of screwing up the planet. I just don't like to see bad science used for a good cause.
>
>Bruce
>
>>Aside from these duped lemmings, are there any studies by EnergyIndustry-funded yet autonomous scientific groups that have arrived at the conclusion that "man-caused global warming" is in fact not a hoax? With the debate about its cause, surely there has to some industry-funded groups that arrive at that conclusion.
>>
>>
>>>>> Dismissing some because they receive money from energy companies is not constructive. If it were then we should be equally dismissive of those who receive money from Greenpeace or The Sierra Club.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, I knew your weren't 'jesting'. Its not constructive for your arguement i'll give you that. Why should we be equally dismissive of an outfit that lobbies against the development and/or use of some natural resource?
>>>
>>>I am not advocating dismissing anyone from the discussion. You clearly are. To be consistent you should make sure that you do not agree with anyone who may be receiving money to advocate a position, regardless of whether you agree with them.
>>>
>>>>> The harping was absurd.
>>>>
>>>>I'm going back in history farther than you. The tobacco labelling and the TV ad banning wasnt done at the behest of the tobacco companies. The tobacco industry fought a very deceptive campaign denying the harmful aspects of their products. It took them a good long while to come around to acknowledging that their products are harmful, which is what a lot of people had been harping on for a long time. The industry had funded scientists who determined that the industry's products were not harmful. Thats the comparison i am making.
>>>
>>>Seems to me that any number of lobies whch touch on science tend to do the same. Again, to be consistent, would you say the same of MADD?
>>>
>>>>> The criticisms of man-made global warming and its impact are coming from a number of scientists for a number of reasons.
>>>>
>>>>I am sure that there are energyco-independant scientists who have this opinion, but the ones you reference in your posts don't fit that criteria.
>>>
>>>Should I check each of the writers I cite with exxonsecrets(aka Greenpeace)?
>>>
>>>>> The current policy paper from ICPP is just that, a policy paper. Drawn up by politicians and ambassadors.
>>>>
>>>>This link refutes that claim that was echoed by the energyco-funded scientiest your referenced.
>>>
>>>Dr. Landsea would disagree with that assessment. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html
>>>
>>>His bonafides are here
>>>http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea_bio.html
>>>
>>>and from Google scholar
>>>http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=dr+chris+Landsea&spell=1
>>>
>>>
>>>As an aside...
>>>I probably shouldn't refer to AGW as an outright hoax. I believe the IPCC's ultimate goal is to force the world, and the USA in particular, into a carbon exchange. There is an awful lot of money and power involved in such a venture. However, my view may change some day.
>>>
>>>For now I do not believe any of the models are even close to sophisticated enough to predict the next 10 let alone 100 years of climate, global or local, but that doesn't make them incorrect either. So for now I'll follow James Lewis' lead and say that I believe AGW is probably a crock.
>>>http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/why_global_warming_is_probably.html
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-friends-of-science-emerge-as-the-natural-resources-stewardship-project
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>One side is funded by environmental groups and the other by energy interests.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So what?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Surely you jest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Actually, yes, that was a joke to demonstrate the absurdity of constantly harping on energy companies for protecting their interests. Apparently too subtle. Maybe I should've compared them to union's giving money to Pelosi.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Are you impressed with how the tobacco companies protected their interests... back in the day?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Actually no. They ended up looking foolish and getting creamed by lawsuits.