Peggy Noonan sounds to me like she’s trying to convince herself there isn’t global warming. Even if we’re not 101% sure, don’t you think it’s not a bad idea to proceed as if it is a sure thing? Especially if the damage we’re doing is on the verge of being irreversible? I agree that we are deeply polarized on the subject, just like so many other crises of our time. Not surprisingly all the global warming debunkers I know are Republicans.

Does it matter if we “believe” in it ? Can we stop it ? Are we trying ? I read about gobal warming years ago, we seem to like to talk about our enviornment more than we like to take action to change it. Back in the seventies we were concerned about conserving energy, that lasted about a nano second, we could have developed alternative energy sources and economical vehicles then. Here it is 30 years later and the problems are worse but we still don’t have solutions in place to “fix” it.

I had a biology professor who felt that the best lesson he could teach us was to be critical of what we were told about science. That the stories or reports that we read from mass media, or from political or industrial sources should all be approached as suspect or biased. If you want more concise information, then you should look to peer reviewed scientific papers. I find that wise advice. I’m sure that Al Gore or any of the other ecological groups that are speaking out on global warming are biasing the information presented in order to “sell” their message to the largest segment of the population. Articles by MIT, Harvard, Princeton or any other scientific outlet that has been released for peer review on the other hand are typically not for mass consumption and would be an excellent resource for more informative raw data. Science is not about facts, it’s about theory and hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observation. Dependant on what type of logic is used and what the data is determines if and how you can test a hypothesis. Global warming is very difficult to test, because the only direct measurement is the temperature of the planet. Everything else is an observation of a result, not a direct indicator of global warming. Is Global warming real? I don’t know. What I do know, all living organisms produce CO2. Plants use CO2 and the ocean is the largest CO2 and heat reservoir, the more water, the more heat and CO2 it can store. Temperatures have only been recorded for the last one hundred years, we are aware of cycles and variations that are a natural occurrence. I guess I have a problem with the ice core data because it is not measuring temperature variations, but CO2 variations. That is not a direct measurement of global warming, but only of the level of CO2. The area that is not clear and not fully addressed in what has been published by the mass media is exactly how much heat & CO2 the ocean can absorb? If it can keep pace with CO2 emissions then what? I do believe that “green” is responsible, but I am still skeptical on whether Chicken Little is correct when he shouts “the sky is falling!”

But climate change articles have appeared in peer-reviewed scientific literature for many years. Science magazine, one of the most prestigious general science peer-reviewed journals, designated climate change as its 2007 “Breakthrough of the Year”. The editorial for the Breakthrough anouncement started thus: “Climate change, a perennial runner-up for Breakthrough of the Year, broke from the pack this year—both in the pages of this section and in the public arena. In 2007, the debate about the reality of global warming ended, at least in the political and public realms in the United States….” Individual peer-reviewed articles typically describe incremental studies and need to be evaluated in composite, which is difficult for non-specialists to do. I find peer-reviewed review articles in well-regarded science journals helpful for an idea of the predominant understanding in a particular field. For example, here’s the abstract of a recent review article in Science describing current understanding of the effect of climate change on coral reefs: “Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2 degrees C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained. Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse. This review presents future scenarios for coral reefs that predict increasingly serious consequences for reef-associated fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, and people. As the International Year of the Reef 2008 begins, scaled-up management intervention and decisive action on global emissions are required if the loss of coral-dominated ecosystems is to be avoided.” As an indication of how seriously the scientific community takes global warming and climate change, the Dec. 11 2007 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences includes an extensive series of articles expanding on assessments of the effects of climate change on food and forestry production. As an indication of how climate change is generally acknowledged in other scientific communities, a recent news article in Nature Medicine describing a UN climate conference held in December 2007 in Bali includes the following: “A growing body of evidence has suggested that climate change might influence the distribution of devastating illnesses such as malaria and heat stroke (Nature 438, 310–317; 2005). Researchers estimate that global warming could mean a 45–70% increase in the number of people exposed to dengue fever worldwide (Lancet 360, 830–834; 2002). At the Bali meeting, Maria Neira, director for public health and the environment at the WHO, noted that a 1 °C increase in temperature could lead to an eight percent increase in the incidence of diarrhea (Lancet 355, 442–450; 2000).” I don’t see in the general scientific literature much debate on whether climate change is occurring. There is certainly uncertainty in assigning the relative influences of the various causes and the accuracy of projections, but specialists in many different fields accept the evidence that climate change is occurring and have made the transition to trying to understand and model the potential effects and possible solutions. This administration has been very successful in ignoring scientific evidence that does not support its agenda, and has fed the scientific skepticism of the general public. One Princeton-trained non-specialist gets press but the majority of scientists who are actively engaged in investigation and analysis are virtually ignored? That’s a pretty sad state of affairs.

I am still recovering from the “global cooling” that was THE thing of the 70s. It did not get as big as this one because we did not have similar communications means as we have today, but it was as intense as it could; everywhere in the media there was talk about the cooling, there were books published about it (I remember one in 1976 called just that, “Cooling”). All the data to prove the global cooling was there, the glaciers measurements, the temperatures records, just everything. The decade ended and we went into something else, we changed mantra; in Europe the 80s were about nuclear stuff (anti-nuclear), the 90s were about the ozone layer and this first decade of the 2000 is about global warming. Eagerly awaiting what will be THE issue from 2010 on :):):)

“Believe in” global warming? That’s like asking if someone believes in gravity. It’s something that’s been scientifically proven to exist. Although Kudos to the Bush administration and its cronies for promoting the concept that global warming, like karma, is something one can choose to believe in or not. I believe their massaging of scientific reports/data to suggest this optional belief has even been documented.

We really lost it when science became something that was “funded” by corporations and think-tanks (i.e., corporations). Let’s see, should we say something that offends the hand that feeds? Universities need to be free and independent, not a crazy quilt of sponsored “science.” As long as ‘science” is privately funded, then it will be as suspect as our elected officials, who need to sell their butts to the highest bidder to get the offices, in hopes of perhaps doing some good along the way. But where do you even begin to unravel the knot? Trying to find rock-solid science outside the universities is rather like looking for a dew drop in a sewage tank. And when political interests get involved, heaven help the hindmost. I heard one time that Britain forces industry to discharge their wastewater UPSTREAM of themselves; it was a political decision, and had a very pronounced result in terms of water quality. Could we ever expect our politicians would do something so sweet, simple, and sane?

I find it difficult to fathom the idiocy that cannot see something is happening to our world. Frogs are dying off, bees are disappearing, an enormous piece of an arctic glacier six times the size of Manhattan has broken off. Nature has always given us signs when something cataclysmic is about to occur. We need to open our eyes and do something NOW!

I just finished a wonderful survey at http://www.theclimateproject.org/ which is the Al Gore site on the environment. If anyone really wants an opportunity to express their ideas on the environment and global warming this IS the survey to do. IIt is at the top of the page on the left side. It covers every issue and really gives you a chance to express your ideas. It seems to be classifying participants by who they are: liberal, democrat, republican and also by their religious affiliation. I suspect the analysis of this survey will really make the news as it will be a chance for all groups to express their views and the analysis could be ground breaking. WOWOWOW women need to be a part of this as I think our opinions are always newsworthy, original and out of the box.

I think global warming is an unresolved question. Is it actually happening or is it a replay of something that has happened thousands of times in pre-history and history. History reveals these are natural changes that evolve over time. http://www.theclimateproject.org/ is a great opportunity to be interviewed in depth and search your own mind for the origin of your opinions and use an interviewing tool that is truly unique. It is called Socrates and it utilizes a truly timeless method of philosophical inquiry to get you dig deep and really expalin to yourself and other why you believe as you do.

It makes no sense to me that these global climate advocates, who believe wholeheartedly and adamantly in Global warning, fly around in private jets and have multiple 10,000+ square foot homes. The are living the vive grande, but they want me to conserve energy, not run my clothes dryer and use 1 square of toilet paper, ala Sheryl Crow. And it doesn’t count to simply but energy efficient light bulbs in the 10,000 square foot home. Who are they kidding? Do they think we don’t notice their ostentatious energy hungry lifestyles?? I do my part as a matter of using resources wisely, but who gets to choose which lifestyle is acceptable and which is not? It’s a complex situation, just like predicting the weather. Also, China has had large parts of their country devastated by a 100 year ice and snow storm. They were not prepared.

Yes, I beleive global warming already is changing our world as we have known it. Time to get green - ASAP.

Is it global warming or just the evolution of change occuring? The energy is changing, the old energy of control, domination, and manipulation is no longer need and is being replace by a nurturing, compassionate, loving energy. Which many believe the planet is changing or order to bring about balance, which has never been experienced! So call it global warming or being about balance to the planet. It is up to us to decide if we want to create a nurturing, caring and compassionate planet or one that remains dominate, controlling and manipulative. The question, is global warming taking place or not, is not what we should be asking, the true question is, what type of planet do you wish to be a part of???

Global warming ? Please ,according to old written records - Lake Balaton ,Hungary ,Europe ( that is my homeland ) totally dried up during the past 1000 years several times . There were always extremities in the weather . Lake Balaton is full of water nowadays . What should I think about that ?