May 23, 2006 4:58 PM PDT

By 2020, kiss the snows of Kilimanjaro goodbye

BERKELEY, Calif.--There are a lot of projections about global warming, and almost all of them are scary.

Scientists who've studied the issue now almost unanimously agree that the ocean levels will likely rise at least a half a meter by 2100, and possibly more if current temperature trends and energy use continue, according to John Harte, professor of energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley, speaking at the U.S.-China Symposium on Climate Change taking place at the school this week.

The half-meter rise in sea levels, caused by a 3 to 5 degree increase in average global temperature, will lead to the loss of a few small island nations and severe impacts for places like Hong Kong. More intense and longer heat waves will lead to larger death counts than those seen in Europe during the summer in the past few years, Harte predicted. Polar bears will likely die off as their habitat vanishes.

"By 2020, the snows of Kilimanjaro could be no more," he added.

And that's the good news, he pointed out. A broad consensus of scientists also believe the world will experience increased intensity of hurricanes, reduced crop yields and a rash of major fires. More data is needed on these projections, however.

Under more dire projections, tropical diseases like malaria could spread to more developed parts of the globe as temperatures climb, he added. Mass extinction of species on par with what happened prehistorically could occur as animals fail to keep pace with climate change.

Solar power and biofuels could help curb greenhouse gases and temperature increases, but some change is likely unavoidable. Carbon dioxide doesn't leave the atmosphere quickly, and swapping out current industrial technology will take time, noted Inez Fung, a researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a lab operated by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy.

The ecological chain reaction is also difficult to reverse. The melting of glaciers means darker earth, which absorbs more sunlight, which in turn accelerates the melting of the glaciers. Similarly, warming leads to less rainfall in certain regions. This can lead to forest fires and more warming carbon dioxide.

Today, carbon dioxide exists in a concentration of about 380 parts per million in the atmosphere, Fung said. The Earth's atmosphere had a carbon dioxide level of 275 parts per million prior to the industrial revolution.

If carbon dioxide levels remained constant for the century, a near impossible best case scenario, the temperature will rise about 2 degrees Celsius, said Fung. If normal consumption trends continue and substantial changes aren't made with regard to fossil fuel use, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will rise to 580 parts per million, she said. That in turn would lead to a rise in global temperatures of about 3 to 5 degrees Celsius.

Quadrupling emissions would raise temperatures in the U.S. by 6 to 10 degrees Celsius on average and create dire problems, said Steve Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley lab.

"Six to 10 degrees is the difference between the temperature today and the temperature of the deepest ice age," Chu said.

Even though solar energy is gaining momentum, and policy leaders even in China have begun to create programs to curb pollution, fossil fuels aren't going away. Several companies have already committed to building new coal plants over the next 25 years. If technology to sequester the carbon dioxide that comes out of these plants underground isn't developed, these new plants will spew 145 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

That's as much as humanity put into the air through coal between 1750 and 2000, said David Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"We can do it if we store the carbon in geologic formations," he said. "Conventional coal plants cannot effectively capture it."

While much of the global warming debate has taken place among scientists, businesses are already looking at ways to calculate the risks of rising warming, added Gary Guzy, senior vice president at Marsh USA, which advises insurers on the future risks.

"If you are about to build a hydroelectric dam, you want to think about the long-term impact on the snow pack," Guzy said.

If the sea levels rise 6 meters, possible under some models, everything south of Ft. Meyers in Florida along with the Orlando-Daytona corridor will be underwater, Guzy added.

See more CNET content tagged:
carbon, atmosphere, temperature, snow, projection


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
These predicting folks are the same ones gassing up that Hummer to sit in traffic for hours on end.
Posted by (156 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I would bet a lot of money that the people who are making these
predictions are much more conscious about their fuel consumption
than the average person.
Posted by cfmorr (2 comments )
Link Flag
Quick Fix
To put the country simple, earth has a lot of things other folks might the whole planet. And maybe these folks would like a few changes
made. Like more carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, and room for their way of
life. We've seen this happen before, right in these United States.

Your way of life destroyed the Indian's way of life.

The Indian reservation is extinction.

But I offer this distinction. I'm with the invaders, no use trying to hide
that. And at the same, I disagree with some of the things they are doing.

Oh were not united anymore than you are
Oh we're not united anymore than you are.

Conservative factions is set on nuclear war as a solution to the Indian

Others disagree
Others disagree

I don't claim that my methods are one hundred percent humane, but I do say,
if we can't think of anything quieter, and tidier than that...

We are all not that much better than new earth aches.

There is no place else to go
The theater is closed

There is no place else to go
The theater is closed

Cut word lines
Cut music lines
Smash the control images
Smash the control machine.
Posted by jjaser (14 comments )
Link Flag
Historically inaccurate.
The scientists studying the global warming phenomenon are
merely theorizing. There is no impirical evidence that rising
temperatures and glacial melt aren't naturally occuring functions
of the living planet. Humanity as a whole only has reliable
weather data going back maybe 100 years or so. Certainly not
enough information to make more than a guess at the true
nature of the phenomenon.

Maybe it happens once every thousand years or so for a few
decades and then recedes. Maybe it's been happening for
millions of years and we've only just now, in the last few
decades, has the technology and knowledge to notice.

I would love for the human race to become less dependent on
fossil fuels and such, but there aren't any truly viable
alternatives to this point. Solar and wind and water power won't
provide the energy necessary now or in the future and less-
polluting or non-polluting vehicles aren't a viable alternative
either at this point.

As much as I love science, the scientific method and all that the
various disciplines have brought to humanity, I have doubts
about the veracity of global warming and the long term
detrimental effects to the planet.
Posted by nightveil (133 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Sadly not quite right
Sadly not quite right, due to the global atmospheric interaction between hemispheres, core ice samples, can actually be actively dated, showing both past weather and atmospheric conditions and compositions(samples of tiny compressed air bubbles are trapped in the sheet ice) for thousands of years(and yes volcanic activity as well, based on the types of particle sample densities in air at the time the snow fell).

The ice weather scientist, with ice core drills, have both Greenland, and the Antarctic to play with, given the extremely thick and dense ice sheets, further they can run a minimum 3,000 year comparison test! to back up the data, using things as simple as tree rings, from preserved wood specimens

The wonders of mordern science developed since WWII, and from the information provided in the fifties Geo Physical year!
Posted by heystoopid (691 comments )
Link Flag
Feed your brain
You hit the nail on the head. All we have right now is a series of observations. You know what making predictions about climate change makes us?


The only people on the planet who can be WRONG on the job 80% of the time and still be employed.

Anyway, read up on the "little ice age" (linked below). It's a recent occurrence that the media and politicians don't know about. Mostly because they aren't interested in the facts.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

Data supports that not only does the climate change, but that the idea of "stable climate" on this planet, pretty much going back as long as we can imagine, is a myth. With or without humanity, the climate changes.
Posted by Christopher Hall (1205 comments )
Link Flag
Who cares if we die or go extinct....
Big deal...
Posted by coryschulz (326 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I don't see it that way.
We survived the last ice age, Cory. We'll likely survive the next one. (Along with a spattering of the most adaptable life on the planet, just like last time.)
Posted by Christopher Hall (1205 comments )
Link Flag
Ice Age or Fireball, which is it?
Aren't these the same folks that, in the '70s, were declaring the imminent ice age about now. Science has come a long way since then, but I don't think their models have any settings other than catastrophic and cataclysmic. Of course, there's probably not as much research money in saying that the status quo is good and will stay that way for a long time...

Is it any wonder that so many people distrust the academia and politicos who spout theory as fact and declare conventional wisdom as barbaric? Is there an agenda to advance? Would dependency on them to "fix" or "manage" all the ills purported to be imminent be a part of that agenda?

"...nothing new under the sun..."
Posted by jfbn (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
I think you're leaving an important element out of your critique--the media. If you look at original scientific literature, you will find that the scientists are almost ALWAYS cautious, and provide various ranges. If you didn't you'd be shot down. So the extremes we hear about are because the media wants drama and sensationalism. Sure the scientists provide the quotes, but these are usually in a greater context that is not reported and those extremes are what the reporters solicit.
Posted by rickogorman (1 comment )
Link Flag
Is this going
to drop or raise the price of my conroe purchase? Delay Vista more?

Or change this site into more left wing non-IT news?
Posted by Lindy01 (443 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thank you...
...for your comment. I had to stop reading Wired magazine because they are drifting into an agenda based magazine. I hope that reads these comments and realizes they're losing viewership to tech blogs.
Posted by lewissalem (167 comments )
Link Flag
You are...
...going to want to switch to AMD in the short term because you'll need a cooler running CPU during the planet's warming phase. But when the ice age sets in, then you can go with Intel, if you like.

Posted by J_Satch (571 comments )
Link Flag
Technology News and Business Reports
So, you're saying that this left wing trash doesn't fit in with's tagline of "Technology News and Business Reports"?

Hmm... maybe you're right. But the "progressives" among us always think that every available platform is the appropriate one to spew their garbage.

Oh well.
Posted by ebrandel (102 comments )
Link Flag
for your information...
It would only take a 100 square miles of solar panels in Mohave desert to power the entire United States, cars excluded of course. It's not that there aren't alternatives, it is the fact that when someone sneezes over there oil goes up. With alternative energies pricing would have a fixed cost which would eventually keep declining as technology progresses. Now why would you give up your ability to make yourself rich with pure speculations of oil market?
Posted by dondarko (261 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I'll bet you $1,000..
..Florida will NOT be under water in 2020. That doesn't make for much of a headline though does it?
Posted by lewissalem (167 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I'm buying...
...real estate in the Fort Meyers area just in case!

Posted by J_Satch (571 comments )
Link Flag
"It would only take a 100 square miles of solar panels in Mohave desert to power the entire United States"

Do you have any sources for this information? Or are you purely making it up like most environmental alarmists?
Posted by lewissalem (167 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I was wrong, and I apologize
I don't like to admit it, but I was wrong.

Somehow, in my sick, twisted mind, I had equated "tech site" with "scientific site". I mean, it seemed logical at the time. Science begat technology, therefore technology would beget scientific reasoning.

Obviously, with articles such as this, this is clearly not the case, and I'd like to publicly apologize for my misguided ways.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, a few comments:

1. Yes, every scientist on the planet agrees we're in a warming cycle, although recent evidence indicates that it's about half of the figures used by the doomsayers. But, yes, the planet is certainly in a warming cycle:

<a class="jive-link-external" href=";sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html" target="_newWindow">;sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html</a>

2. Okay, just for sake of argument, let's say "global warming" is real and that it's entirely our fault. What, oh what, will be done about it?! How about "nothing"?

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

3. The header of the article (by the main link) says, "Florida is in a lot of trouble." Note the "is", not "might be". C-Net writes the headers, not the author, and this certainly shows their slant on the whole thing.

The author initially states that sea levels could rise by a half meter, or about a foot and a half, which wouldn't affect Florida (I live there) in the least, outside of costing us a bit of beach sand.

But wait! The article ends with, "If the sea levels rise 6 meters, possible under some models, everything south of Ft. Meyers in Florida along with the Orlando-Daytona corridor will be underwater, Guzy added."

I love that "some models" part. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change applied these same 'models' to weather over the past 100 years and found "computer models consistently project a rise in temperatures over the past century that is more than twice as high as the measured increase."

If we take that as Gospel, then Scaremonger Guzy's "6 meters" actually means about 2 meters, which I don't quite think will spell the end of civilization as we know it.

This is a great article, read it:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

4. Have you noticed one particular type of pollution-causing source that's strangely not mentioned in any of the global warming stories? We read about factories, cars in general, SUVs and Hummers in particular, and every other sort of evil, man-made device causing these earth-crippling chemicals. Every other sort but one:


I read an article years ago, before the term "global warming" had been coined, on the tremendous damage being done to our atmosphere by airliners in general, and SSTs in particular. The SST crash in France a few years ago, which ended up causing it to be taken out of service, was probably the best thing that's happened to our atmosphere in the planet's history. The gist of the article was that exhaust gasses being released in the upper atmosphere are a hundred times more lethal than exhaust gasses emitted at ground level. The SST, flying even higher than normal airliners, was like ten times worse than that.

So why aren't airliners being included along with the SUVs and Hummers? Because, if we were really serious about reducing CO2 emissions, airliners would be the first to go. Since that's obviously not going to happen, the alarmists focus on the little guy, us. I just find it interesting that the "seriousness" of the alarmists only goes so far. Apparently, theyd rather sacrifice our coastal cities than the convenience of air travel.

Lastly, there's one other interesting point to be made. Have you noticed that every time C-Net posts a global warming scare story, the readers, a fairly smart, tech-savvy group, almost universally slam it?

Yet they keep posting articles on the subject, and, as this article shows, their alarmism is only getting worse ("Florida IS in a lot of trouble."). Nor do they ever run a counter-argument article, such as the one on the Opinion Journal, link above.

All this says to me is that C-Net (1) never reads these replies, or (2) doesn't care about our opinions (no matter how well-informed), even if it does. Apparently, if youre the editor of a tech site, youre automatically smarter than your readers.

Once again, I would like to publicly apologize for having mistaken "tech site" for "scientific site", and I promise to never make the same mistake again.

Lakeland, FL
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>
Posted by Joe Bolt (62 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Well put
Very interesting point on airline travel.

Makes me think about Al Gore flying all the way to Kyoto to deliver a speech on global warming in 1997 and then turning right around and going back to DC. I believe the total amount of fuel burned was somewhere around 45,000 lbs. Which would release roughly 150,000 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere (burning 6 pounds of gas (roughly 1 gallon) releases 20 pounds of CO2).
Posted by ebrandel (102 comments )
Link Flag
Hey Mr Sarcastic,
Your source "The Scotsman" agrees with the CNET article about African climate change at least; check it out:
<a class="jive-link-external" href=";id=733082006" target="_newWindow">;id=733082006</a>

Your point about airliners and SSTs is well-taken though. It gives me hope that maybe you're not one of those ubiquitous knuckle-draggers who, having decided to bury his own head in the sand on this problem, gets all pissy with anyone that doesn't do the same.
Posted by ebakeman (2 comments )
Link Flag
&gt; So why aren't airliners being included along
&gt;with the SUVs and Hummers?

Because SUVs are driven by white american Red-necks, a group thats fashionable to bash.

Airlines, on the other hand, are required for the worldly leftists to be able to 'holiday' in Thailand. Even though a single long flight on an airline will produce more CO2 per person than the difference produced between a prius and SUV over an entire year.

But you are correct, if they were HONEST about their concerns, the doomsayers would be going after planes more than SUVs.
Posted by (402 comments )
Link Flag
Warm fuzzies...
Any public news organization is going to have those who are able to influence the work from outside the organization. Maybe someone at the top of the CNET org has a sister involved in politics and they are trying to score points during an election year. It could for any reason. There's always going to be someone that will compromise an entire company's integrity for a personal agenda. This is living proof.

Besides, there's another authority that talks about global warming that I tend to belieive. Look at Gen 8:22: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." (KJV)

That pretty much sums it up for me.
Posted by sunergeos (111 comments )
Link Flag
The article C-Net should have run
I just posted a fairly lengthy reply ("I was wrong...") to this latest scaremongering on C-Net's part, in which I included a number of links.

This is the best of the bunch, so I thought I'd post a separate message to bring it to your attention:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

Take a lesson, C-Net.
Posted by Joe Bolt (62 comments )
Reply Link Flag
...I guess I won't be buying that Fort Meyers area real estate after all. :) Good article, thanks.
Posted by J_Satch (571 comments )
Link Flag
"Best of the bunch"?
Gee, let's look at this article ...

- Produced by a right-wing think-tank which has accepted over $390,000 from ExxonMobile since 1998

- Quotes from its own 'studies' as evidence

- Author is from the DuPont family, who have done about as much for destroying the environment as any family - E. I. duPont de Nemours &#38; Company is one of the world's worst enviromental offenders (one word: "Dioxin")

Can you say, "Propaganda"? Sure ... I knew you could.

Here's some news, sports fans - the Earth doesn't care about politics; it doesn't care who is right-wing, who is left-wing, who is Republican, who is Democrat ... it's dying and we will ALL be affected.

But don't take it from me - take it from someone with absolutely no political agenda to grind, an old English guy named David Attenborough:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>
Posted by Riot Nrrrd" (4 comments )
Link Flag
"Best of the bunch"?
Gee, let's look at this article ...

- Produced by a right-wing think-tank which has accepted over $390,000 from ExxonMobile since 1998

- Quotes from its own 'studies' as evidence

- Author is from the DuPont family, who have done about as much for destroying the environment as any family - E. I. duPont de Nemours &#38; Company is one of the world's worst enviromental offenders (one word: "Dioxin")

Can you say, "Propaganda"? Sure ... I knew you could.

Here's some news, sports fans - the Earth doesn't care about politics; it doesn't care who is right-wing, who is left-wing, who is Republican, who is Democrat ... it's dying and we will ALL be affected.

But don't take it from me - take it from someone with absolutely no political agenda to grind, an old English guy named David Attenborough:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>
Posted by Riot Nrrrd" (4 comments )
Link Flag
Arent you ashamed, CNET?
Arent you ashamed of yourselves for jumping on the 'doomsday' bandwagon? Do you really think so low of your readers that you believe they need such prophecies to get them to read your news? If you're going to be a science site, how about acting like it and not purveying nonsense like this article?

Do you have ANY journalistic standards???
Posted by (402 comments )
Reply Link Flag
And where's the knee-jerk Left?
This discussion is too one-sided to be entertaining.
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Don't worry...'s here. See Riot Nrrd's post above.
Posted by J_Satch (571 comments )
Link Flag
Support Cape Wind - Offshore wind power!
Ask Senator Kennedy why he's working to block the
nations first offshore wind farm.
Posted by Joe Hanson (65 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Wind Farm vs. Wind Bag
The Kennedy clan are liers, hypocrites, rapeist and murders. Who in there right mind would vote for a worn out alcoholic murderer as a Senator? If he is the best that MA has had to offer for the past 44 years then this nation is in deep trouble. And wind power is not the first step in correcting the problem.
Posted by MR. CONSERVATIVE INC. (1 comment )
Link Flag
Who thinks global warming is a farce?
And if Yes...

Have you read any mainstream, peer-reviewed science articles
on the subject?

If you read them, you'll find a near global consensus suggesting

a. Global warming is happening.

b. Human industrial activity is contributing significantly to
global warming.

c. Many models projecting climate trends into the mid-century
suggest a decent chance of a dramatic rise in global

This isn't leftwing BS anymore. This is real and it's becoming as
accepted as evolution.

I didn't realize I was in the severe minority until last year.

I'm still a skeptic when it comes to drama-hungry news bites
like this article.

But I think anyone wholly dismissing the data and how a change
in our behaviour could mitigate any negative outcomes just has
their head up their ass at this point.

Be skeptical, but for f*cks sake, take this seriously.
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It's not exactly that simple
You have some great points, and being a skeptic has served you well in being objective. But as with many things, the execution of "the big picture", in this case moreso than others, is terribly misguided at best and flat-out wrong at worst.

&gt;&gt;a. Global warming is happening.&lt;&lt;
*Climate change* happens. This should come as no surprise to anyone. Alarmism over shifts in the ecosystem, however, is a futile endeavor. (More on that below.)

&gt;&gt;b. Human industrial activity is contributing significantly to global warming.&lt;&lt;
This is possible, though in such a case not only limited to human industrial activity. Global industrialization, atomic testing, increased market penetration of the automobile, and various other destabilizing effects have probably contributed to shifting climate trends. A combination of these factors in addition to natural factors has likely produced an accelerated positive feedback loop.

However, the focus on this is totally misguided. The United States and Europe, though major historical contributors to "atmospheric dumping", have greatly improved in recent decades. Rationalizing pointing the finger at the most powerful nations by asserting that the lesser nations will follow suit is unrealistic, and will likely achieve little in the long run. The onus needs to be on the industrializing nations, with various incentives and grants awarded for adopting greener technologies.

Most importantly, a paradigm shift towards making saving the world a profitable enterprise would be most beneficial, but isn't likely to happen any time soon.

&gt;&gt;But I think anyone wholly dismissing the data and how a change in our behaviour could mitigate any negative outcomes just has their head up their ass at this point.&lt;&lt;
Real scientists never wholly dismiss anything. It's the general population, the politicians, and the media you need to worry about.


All kidding aside, allow me to propose this to you: nothing you, nor I, nor every person on the planet could do will have any effect on any of the changes that may be coming our way. It's not nihilist, it's just the nature of the positive feedback loop, and hear me out.

If, in fact, the dominos have begun to fall as some would suggest, stopping or slowing the chain reaction would take nothing less than the largest engineering project ever conceived - literally: planetary engineering. While you're dead on that eliminating the root cause of the problem is always the best way to address any given problem, in matters of global ecosystems, you would need to eliminate the root cause IN ADDITION TO providing an equal and opposite force to the positive feedback. We have neither the technology nor the resources to accomplish such a thing.

The only unfortunate truth is that whatever happens, happens. Nothing you can do will change that. I'm deeply sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

But, it's not all bad. This planet has an amazing capacity for "uh oh", as evidenced by various extinction-level events, global catastrophes, foreign object impacts, what have you. Life goes on and will likely continue to go on whether we will it or not. From every bottleneck emerges the strongest species to take its rightful place on the world stage.

&gt;&gt;Be skeptical, but for f*cks sake, take this seriously.&lt;&lt;
Hey now, there's no need for obscenity. Even self-censored, obscenity takes away from an otherwise good post.
Posted by Christopher Hall (1205 comments )
Link Flag
Could it be Solar Warming????
Just another one sided article filled with BS. Have any of these "Experts" made a conection between the Sun's temperature and the earth's. I think that the sun is able to raise its temperature one degree or more.

We have to stop this mass hysteria...
Posted by thehsm (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What about "Local Warming"?
Sometimes the temperatures outside my house go from 57F to 75F in a matter of hours. That's an increase of 18F and I survived it...
Are these so called experts on global warming saying that an increase of 1 degree is going to change that range to 58F-76F and we all going to die?
Posted by thehsm (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Global Warming is a LIE!
You guys are really sucked into this eco-religious global warming pap. It is pure garbage, nothing but gloom and doom for profit.

1) The Earth has been seeing significant rises and falls in both temperature and co2 levels since the dawn of time. The last time we got warm, it was called the medieval climate optimum. Look it up. It was not catastrophic at all, nor did life on earth cease to exist. It was considered optimum then, but now it is a crisis?

There are ice ages and warm periods as evidenced by ice cores and tree ring samples. We are breaking no new ground here, except possibly the level of deception that you have been sold. Kill me if I misquote, but wasn't it hitler that said that if you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it. Adolph's mantra lives on in the enviro-left of today.

2) It is pure arrogance to think that man has control over the climate on a large scale. If we could change the weather, wouldn't we eliminate killer tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, etc? Alarmism is easy, what is your plan? Everyone put their cars in a lock box and give them to algore while he jets around the country? Impress me eco-fools, change the weather even one little iota. If you can do that I will stop calling you fools.

3) Do you really think that doubling the gas mileage on your Saab or eliminating every source of carbon based energy for 10 years would actually reduce co2 levels? Maybe try better environmental policy on our public lands. Environmentalists attempting to convert industrial forests to wild lands through neglect have burned down what, 30, 40 million acres of forests in the last 15 years?&gt; How much C02 did that give off?The proposals offered so far would have no effect in the grand scheme of things, other than a lot of pain for the common man.

4) How many active volcanoes are there in the world right now? Those spew billions of tons of pollutants (and C02)every year, many times more that man and industry combined in my estimation. The ones in the ocean also cause sea surface warming and put off a tremendous amount of steam. BTW, the #1 greenhouse gas in concentration is water vapor. If you just stop the volcanoes, you can significantly drop both C02 and water vapor levels, and a host of other pollutants. It still wouldn't change the earth's temperature.

Point #5 IT IS CALLED THE SUN! The sun is what warms the earth. If you check solar output against global temperature measurements you will find that they follow the same path. The sun heats us, and when it is hotter, it stands to reason that we get hotter too. If you are so positive that global warming is anthroprogenic (man made), explain why Mars is also warming at the same pace as solar output and the earth increases and decreases. Is man sooooo evil that he has already spread global warming to other planets&gt;? Get serious.

6) Your sources are tainted and in some cases fraudulent. If you are a climate researcher and you find that there is no crisis, where is your research grant for next year coming from? To have an ongoing job, you need an ongoing crisis. This applies to the IPCC, climate researchers, the various green organizations like the NRDC, sierra club and their ilk. As far as the fraud, Mann's hockey stick graph has been proven to be an intentional fraud. It makes the same shape no matter what numbers are put in by the way that the model handles (and eliminates unfavorable) data.

7) I am tired of hearing how almost every scientist in the world is on board with the global warming fraud. It isn't so. There is this thing called the Petition Project. It is where over 17,000 VERIFIED scientists signed the following statement against the signing of the Kyoto Protocol... <a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

It is worded as follows...

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

You can find more honest climate research data here... <a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

8) I am ashamed that cnet and so many of my fellow netizens have gotten sucked into this eco-religious hype and "catastrophe right around the corner" pap. Don't you know that the eco-religious groups want to take away your energy use and return the developed world into a third world toilet&gt;? That is why they oppose every single power line, oil drilling project, power plant, and refinery proposed. They have openly advocated $8 a gallon gas so less of YOU will drive cars, boats, whatever. They gave some guy an award for "Wishing some sort of virus on mankind to eliminate 90% of the population". Now they have so many of you sucked into chanting their lies.

Don't you like electricity and your car? Are you ready to give them up, or do you want more proof of the fable that you propagate? Do you want it to cost more to have energy so that less people can have it? What are you really advocating here? Are you ready to live in the third world?

Global warming is for the most part natural. Blame the sun, blame the volcano, blame the ocean and the water vapor and the c02 that gives life to plants. None of the garbage proposed and none of the doomsday scenarios will change the atmosphere a single degree. If you want to cut global warming, a good place to start is with all of the hot air produced by eco freaks and the brainwashed stooges that follow them.
Posted by Globalwarmingisalie42421 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thanks for the thought out opinion

But I'll think twice about giving your arguments much weight.

You're clearly sucked into the anti-eco-religious camp.

Not to mention that all of the major scientific bodies in the US
unanimously disagree with you.
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Link Flag
it's a lie?
this person must live in a cave... have you ever heard of 'cause and effect'? wake up!
Posted by gypsea_jon (2 comments )
Link Flag
Free publicity for Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth."?
What is this? Advance work for Al Gore's movie? What a toadying piece of journalism, reading about Al Bore's enviromental manifesto. Where's CNet going with their news coverage now?
Posted by troob (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Are you all oil company cronies??
Ok, so first of all most climate (and other environmental scientists) are not "profiting" the way oil companies are from gov't subsidies. So please don't think anyone doing science is draining your tax dollars or getting rich.

I have seen these same sound bites in several forums. Lets look at a couple points.

Volcanos, yes they spew CO2 into the atmosphere, if you compare the emissions from the top ten active volcanos in the world it is rougly 200,000 tons of CO2 a day. If you compare that to daily fossil fuel buring, 19,000,000 tons a day, there is a bit of a difference there (a few orders of magnitude). Ok so what about the other active volcanos, well honestly once you get past the top ten the amount of CO2 is not significant. These are published values from different scientific studies.

Yes CO2 and temp have varied over geologic time. But no other time in history has CO2 risen at the rate it has currently. And geologic records show that even smaller changes in CO2 (over longer time frames) have triggered large climate change.

Weather and climate, though linked are different. To state that since we cannot control hurricanes or tornados means that we cannot affect climate is illogical. Small scale weather events are very different than increasing the heat capacity of the atmosphere/earth. And people are already doing cloud seeding, inducing rain, and therefore changing the weather. So will you now stop calling people fools globalwarmingisalie42421?

Sun- some correct, the solar output which varies, affects solar input to the planet. Which drives weather patterns, and affects temperature. Though there has not been a coincident rise in solar output that can explain the rises in sea and surface temperature. The temperature of the sun really has little to do with our temperature. There is no direct conduction of heat energy from the sun to the earth (the millions of miles of absolute zero space acts as a good heat insulator).

Sources- by the same logic, since all scientists are only concerned with advancing their own causes to secure funding, then anything that anyone says is fradulent as they have their own agendas. If scientists really wanted to keep getting funding they would be saying, we don't really know, and need more money to find out.

Decreasing energy use will not turn the US into a third world country. How is this not a scare tactic on the other side of the debate?? Most businesses and corporations are moving toward "green" (oo scary) practices, because it is more effcient and increases profit, both long and short term. The implimentation of alternative energies provides a whole new market and lots of money for people to make. This includes the oil companies that are moving that direction as well.

Most solutions to decreasing fossil fuel use do not involve us moving into caves.

I have to say some of the people here sound much more brainwashed than the average person concerned about climate change. It isn't always us against them, although I think often people would rather fight than fix problems.

By the way, again, someone else wrote the temperature outside their house changes x amount, and how come that doesn't kill them. Well, I am sorry I cannot explain that, but that is quite different than a couple degree change in the average temperature of the world.

Chances are not all the doomsday scenarios will come true, and some will. Most politicians and government agencies ask scientists to predict worse case scenarios, so they do, as well as most likely scenarios. The media unfortunately takes the worst case and presents that.

Oh yea, and the midevil climate "optimum" was an optimum because areas of the high latitude were inhabitable by people. Soon after that, climate cooled, and many of the settlements in southern greenland were abandoned and inhabitats starved. If say the oceanic currents change, as have done throughout history due to climate change, places like England will become more artic like. This is not eco-religion as someone put it. currently the ocean carries warm water across the north atlantic, warming england to a moderate temperature. Ever wonder why it isn't snowy there even though it is at the same latitude as southern greenland??

It isn't jsut warming, it's climate change.

So please try and get some facts straight before calling everyone else a liar. Why are you all so afraid of change? There are sure to be some negative results of human induced climate change (and sorry it is happening regardless of what unfounded statements anyone makes), but there can also be several good things that come out of this if humanity decides to do what it does best solve problems.
Posted by benthos72 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Are you all Green Cronies??
Ok, so first of all, most climage and environmental scients are being paid by green groups, so they ARE getting rich off of people like you benthos72 who don't know what your tlaking about and need an activity to protest against.

Mars's atmosphere is 95% CO2 and yet it is colder then Earth? WHY? Because there is more to do with the atmosphere then CO2. Water vapor accounts for 95% of the earth's Greenhouse Effect.

The Church of Global Warming wants your $$$

The green movement is more about money then anything. Thing about it, if you can use the changing weather as your battle cry to raise money or prove a political point, then you will never run out of excuses.

The Facts are that it has been warmer in the earth's past far more then it has been cool. Also, the CO2 is at an all time low. Look at the history of the earth's CO2. And by history, I'm not talkinb about the last 40 years:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

So, IF its possible that humans are at all responsible...

1. If the earth's temp has been going up and down and up and down, how is it our falt this time when it wasn't our fault in the Precambrian, Silurian, Premian, and Cretaceous peorids?

2. If the earth has been warmer then it is now, for most of the earth's life, why do people think our current temps are normal (when it looks as if current temps are lower then the average/norm)

3. Is it possible, that perhaps, the last 100-150 years of temperature records are no enough to base any opinion? after all, time and NYTimes have gone back and fourth allmost as often as the temperatures have in earth's history.

4. The C02 has been trending down, after being quite a bit higher then it is now (.038% of the atmosphere to at most in the past .7% of the earth's atmosphere) so IF co2 makes it warmer, then why is there what appears to be a limit of how warm the earth gets? Why does the temp not go up and down with the CO2 levels?

5. If Water Vapor is the Number One greenouse gas (and it is, look it up) then wouldn't a vehicle that emits Water Vapor do the opposate of what the environmentals want it to do: Stop Global Warming?

Why don't you look up the facts yourself instead of citing Al Gore.

What you should be doing, instead of calling someone Daft, is looking at both sides of the issue, honestly, then using the evidence to come to your own conclusion. Which is why I've watched Gore's film. To Date, no one has been able to answer my questions that I've asked. Once they do, there will be a case for human caused global warming.

Gore doesn't mention the FACT that the earth is at an extreme low when it comes to average temperature

Gore doesn't mention the FACT that there is no direct correlation between CO2 and Temperature

Gore doesn't mention the FACT that we have been in Ice ages with higher CO2 then today.

I have no doubt that the earth could be getting warmer... Look at the earth's average temperature in the past.

However, To Say Humans are at fault for something the earth has done time and time and time again with out us is ignorant at best, Dangerous at worst.

1. you are only going back 400 thousand years. try going all the way back. Try too study some charts to see the correlations don't exist. Here's a good one:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

We have been in ice ages with C02 levels way higher then they are now.

2. our current temps can't be considered normal, unless you are using a short time span as the basis for normal, which, if you did that, every time winter would hit, it would be abnormal lows for the temp that was round during summer. If we are looking into whether or not this Global Warming thing is caused by man, you have to look at examples in the past (and not just 11 thousand or 400 thousand years, as far back as you can measure). the fact is temps have been much warmer in the past many many times without human intervention, and we have been in and out of ice ages with non coloration between the CO2 and the Ice ages. CO2 has actually gone down while going into a warming trend (see the Shift from the Ordovician to Silurian periods) Even the high temp in the earth's history (average of 22 C) seams to be limited despite the fact that CO2 has been as high as .7% of the atmosphere.

3. we have records that go back further then that. and they show information that contradicts your limited, cherry picked data.

4. co2 has been trending down (in the grand scheme of history). Cambrian period, co2 was up to 7000ppm. the Ordovician period it went down to about 4400ppm (during an ice age by the way). It hit a low of about 400ppm during the Carboniferous period, and went up to 2700ppm during the Jurassic period, from which it sank to what it is today: 380ppm. If that's not trending Down, you'll have to explain to me your definition of "Trending Up" The Analysis of the actual data shows it quite clearly. Look it up.

5. The additional CO2 we've pumped in still puts us at an all time low. if you can tell me how we were in an ice age with 4400ppm of co2 and how going up from 320 to 380 is going to cause an environmental uproar, I'd like to hear it. You may not be willing to accept this information, but the future generations will look back and laugh at the EnvironMental's limited assessment and cherry picked data, from all the scientists they have in their pocket.

Doing something about CO2 emissions would be a drain on the world economies. Look at Kyoto. Much like churches in the dark ages would absolved someone of their sins with proper penance, The Church of Global Warming is going to "Absolve" your co2 output if only you give them your money. Sounds like a scam, doesn't it?

Serious scientists don't doubt that the earth will warm. The history of the planet shows that our temperatures are at a low point, from which the earth has repeatedly risen to up to 22c... however real scientists do doubt weather or not its human's fault.
Posted by zeeboid (92 comments )
Link Flag
Global warming is a lie Pt 2
A few point to reinforce and answer here..

The sun IS directly responsible for heating the earth. While space is indeed cold, the radiation and light do carry energy to the earth, otherwise there would be no difference in surface temperature between here and Pluto. Yes the sun has increased output, and the Mars rover showed global warming on Mars as a result. With similar rates of warming, I will assert that man's effect is not as direct or significant as people claim.

I keep getting these vague references to "all scientists agree" or all credible scientists agree. It ain't so. The Petition Project was started by a guy who was the Past President of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. and the President Emeritus of Rockefeller University. He would not let any of the 17,000 signatories onto the list unless they were a physicist, climate scientist, or an advanced degree professional in a related field. Several green groups tried submitting fraudulent names to discredit the project. Their references failed to check out and they were bounced from the list.

This is a direct reference to 17,000 climate experts who felt that Koyoto and similar plans wouldn't work, and that antroprogenic climate change is not an issue. It is not a vague unreferenced generality such as "All scientists agree..." like folks with opposing views tend to cite.

As far as man changing the climate, I will conceded that yes we have changed short term weather through cloud seeding. There is also direct evidence that small areas do change micro-climate characteristics after severe large scale logging, building of cities and other significant surface changes. What we have not been able to do is what I said, change it on a larger scale. I acknowledge your point on cloud seeding and I won't call 'believers' fools here any more. Lets go all PC with 'gullible people'.

As far as the volcanoes, I have to respectfully disagree. I recall several articles this year about how Mount St Helens emitted more greenhouse gasses that all of Washington state combined. It was not actively erupting, just rumbling and belching gasses. I will maintain that all of the active volcanoes on earth dwarf any tailpipe emissions and coal fired power plants that man could emit.

I also have to claim a little bit of dismay in the whole basis that C02 and water vapor are the top greenhouse gasses and that reducing them would be a good thing. If we were actually successful in reducing the big two significantly, wouldn't that render our plant arid as it stops raining and the plants die off (or see reduced growth rates)? The absurdity of the whole concept is outstanding. It is advocating large scale extinction if you follow it far enough.

I am not against all things green. It is great that Lake Erie won't catch on fire anymore, and it is cool having a bald eagle nest 1/2 mile from the house. There is a long list of environmentalist failures too. Before we dive into some anti-carbon based energy anti-human global economy crushing scheme, we need a sound look at not only the cost benefit ratio and effectiveness of the plan, but at who is advocating it. By controlling all carbon based energy, the IPCC gains enormous power for the UN. The UN has been trying to be more powerful than the US for decades, and like most greenies, do indeed want to revert the evil capitalist United States into a 3rd world country.

Like Jdog said, the greens advocate the return to the golden age of living in a cave, dying old at age 30, and ideally becoming extinct. Enviros are indeed against all energy sources, as well as capitalism, and man's population of the earth. To permit them to advocate economic destruction on a global scale for a made up farce is not a rational plan.

One final thought, how many of the people that are advocating this global warming business were positive that we were going into an ice age in the 70s, that we were overpopulating the earth in a non-sustainable way in the 80s, and other gloomsday scenarios that had us all extinct by Y2K?

I welcome further debate on most any environmental topic, global warming baloney included.
Posted by Globalwarmingisalie42421 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
There's way to much baggage for a clean argument
The topic is way too fraught with fear and hysteria from both

The unanimity often referred to (that the climate change is due
in significant part to human activity in the last 50 years) covers
in the US (to my knowedge):

National Academy of Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Association for the Advancement of Science

These are the heavyeights in the US. I can't think of any other
relevant institutions that haven't chimed in in agreement.

And, of course, the IPCC (who's claims, of course, should be
completely dimissed without examination due to their
connection with the UN)

Does character assassination work on all of them?

The detractors, to the best of my knowledge are a handful of
academics and outsiders.

Logically, any of them could be right.

But given the possible consequences, I'd rather we didn't sit on
our butts.

I see wisdom in pre-emptive actions to mitigate emissions.
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Link Flag
2 words: mental masturbation.

why do you care so much about people beleiving in global warming. why not go to some country with a religion you don't like and yell at them. the only reason you beleive as you do is because it is more 'convenient to do so. i was reading your posts and trying to convince myself they were true. I really want to beleive that you are correct, but it just isnt convincing enough. even if we were 99% certain that global warming werent true, we should still save the ******* planet just in case. so if you dont like global warming, howabout garbage. every day there is more and more garbage being produced ona finite planet. think about it, time is limetless, and the planets size is limited. i get really burned when i read something like what you wrote. you are willing to risk the fate of the planet just to continue being right. you care more about gratifying your own ego and sense of safety than the future of every other living thing on the planet. after reading all of these postings ive realized that we are doomed. human intellegence has not caught up with "PROGRESS".
Posted by Kelmanza (2 comments )
Link Flag
I'm not worried, My Dad will save me from Global Warming, I AM ALWAYS SAFE!
2 words: mental masturbation.

why do you care so much about people beleiving in global warming. why not go to some country with a religion you don't like and yell at them. the only reason you beleive as you do is because it is more 'convenient to do so. i was reading your posts and trying to convince myself they were true. I really want to beleive that you are correct, but it just isnt convincing enough. even if we were 99% certain that global warming werent true, we should still save the ******* planet just in case. so if you dont like global warming, howabout garbage. every day there is more and more garbage being produced ona finite planet. think about it, time is limetless, and the planets size is limited. i get really burned when i read something like what you wrote. you are willing to risk the fate of the planet just to continue being right. you care more about gratifying your own ego and sense of safety than the future of every other living thing on the planet. after reading all of these postings ive realized that we are doomed. human intellegence has not caught up with "PROGRESS".
Posted by Kelmanza (2 comments )
Link Flag
It's kind of hard to debate with someone that is discounting the hard facts. In fact volcanos on the short term cool the climate due to the emission of sulfur and other compunds that increase clouds and decrease solar heating (this has been proven). All estimates of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and volcanos indicate that fossil fuel emissions exceeds volcanos by over 100x. You can respectfully disagree with facts if you want, this is not what I believe, this is known, published, peer reviewed scientific information. If you want to hold on to conspiracy theories that the liberal left and enviro nuts are making up data, so that the IPCC can gain control over the UN is beyond debatable.

In terms of the petition project, it is based on a paper that was not peer reviewed by people without background in the field. The lead author specializes in protein chemistry. If you actually look at the paper, several lines are drawn across variable data plots, without giving the statistical information that would support those claims. In any peer reviewed scientific paper, if you draw a line across a graph to indicate a trend, you need to have stats to prove you did draw it by eye. All these things coupled with the lack of credentials of the authors, well, it lends it no credibility.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not render our planet lifeless, as you suggest. The planet was full of life before the industrial revolution (Since then CO2 has risen roughly 30%). In truth, it isn't just either its here or not. What is problematic is that our exctaction of carbon out of the ground and transmission to the atmosphere is having consequences on climate. And given best estimates, these changes in climate can have braod implications for everyone. We can burn other fuels that will provide us with computers, cars, etc, maybe slightly more expensive, but as these new sources of energy are developed, the prices will come down (as follows in any market).

Now I know the other anti-climate change argument is get lost until you know for sure. But that is how science works, best estimates on available information. If you go to your doctor with certain symptoms, most of the time he treats you based on probability. Same way most medicines work, drug companies try a bunch of things, and whatever works they use, without fully understnading it. BECAUSE the benefit of doing something (ie making you healty, unless you have a reaction to the drug, or something else is wrong) outweighs the chance of the illness killing you.

The UN is ineffectual, and it is quite obvious that the US is more powerful than it. The IPCC will not control fossil fuels the corporations will. The move to lower CO2 emissions is not based in some greenie movement to destroy the US. That is conservative big oil propoganda, based on a whole other set of scare doom and gloom.

You know, the population of the earth is still expanding in an unsustainable way. The quality of life for most people on the planet has declined in the last 20years (we have been mostly insulated from this). The infant death rate has increased in most countries, and has remained the same in this country, even with all the medical advances. There are signs that if we continue on our current path, things will be bad. But we do need to understand them more, and make good solid decisions.

I think its important in these discussions to realize that most of what we all see in the media is either this or that. And yea, projections on what may happen seem bad, but they are projections, means that they may or may not. The bulk of scientific evidence (from people working in and trained in the field) is that CO2 has increased redically since the industrial revolution. We have extracted from the ground a huge amount of carbon (oil, gas, coal), and put it in the atmosphere. Where else would all this extra CO2 come from?? This is a measurable effect, and if you do the calculations, it fits, how much we burn, how much is taken up by plants, and how much is left. Now coincident with CO2 rise (from fossil fuels) is a change in climate, this is the area that is debatable to some degree. Not whether its changing due to fossil fuel, but by how much.

I leave you with a quote from one of the great liberal thinkers of recent times

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
-Upton Sinclair
Posted by benthos72 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I can't believe others fall for this
Mother Nature has you in her sights. The newest
reports are that the ozone hole over the south
pole is closing, meaning the effects of the
green house gases is decreasing. This planet
will take care of any harm we do, she's so
powerful and will if neccesary wipe the slate
clean and start over. We know so little about
this planet, and next to nothing about how the
oceans work, and they cover 70% of the surface.
We have no real guides to point at areas in
our evolution where we created a planet
killing scenaro. The processes that drive this
planet are well observed but little understood.
Posted by mjd420nova (91 comments )
Reply Link Flag
CO2 and hole in the ozon layer ?
Eeehhh, CO2 has little to nothing to do with the hole in the ozon layer, darling.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

CFC caused the hole in the ozon layer.

Already now we see the hole in the ozon layer stabilizing, after the use of CFC was greatly reduced.

See here one example of man's influence on the earth.
Posted by joopbraak (3 comments )
Link Flag
What is there NOT to believe?
This is the reason humans have decided that they are above
protecting the planet: justifying the results of polluting using the
"little is understood" theory about anything and everything!
Mother Nature will "wipe the slate clean" at our expense.
Is that good news? What group of facts did you gleen that from?
Why is it that some people read FACTS about what is happening
RIGHT NOW and then casually deny them as theories? If a
scientific article is describing a theory-if it is a well written
article-it will usually use that word. When something is actually
occurring or has already happened it can be described as a fact.
As for this planet taking care of the harm that we do, that is a
theory, nothing more because we have already done harm that
we cannot reverse. Nor can Mother Nature, that is, in good
enough time to help us or our children and behond. A good
scientific explanation of this is in the second chapter of the
book, The Diversity of Life by E. Wilson when he describes the
various stages of the earth's history from a geological point of
view defines the earth's impoverishment over five known major
events: "A complete recovery from each of the five major
extinctions required tens of millionsof years. In particular the
Ordovician dip needed 25million years, the Devonian 30million
years, the Permian and Triassic (combined because they were so
close together in time) 100 million years, the Cretaceous 20
million years. These figures should give pause to anyone who
believes that what **** sapiens destroys, Nature will redeem.
Maybe so, but not within any length of time that has meaning
for contemporary humanity."
Its not a matter of "falling" for anything. Its about caring for the
place we live so that our species can go on living here!
You take care of your children and your house? Why not help
Mother Nature out by preserving diversity here on Earth-without
that diversity we won't last long irregardless of how much or
how little we claim to know or observe.
Posted by emilysartwork (1 comment )
Link Flag
im 14 years old and i believe that global warming is a complete LIE! People r so stupid believeing in the goverment and scientists that just want money!!! I hav worked on my science teacher to believe me and she does now! So i am glad someone believes me and this person who wrote this story. thankyou!
Posted by hermy123 (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.