Global Warming & Climate Change Policy

[billiards]

Considering that about three quarters of the topics on the first page of the Earth forum concern GW, there is no doubt in my mind that this is a major blow for the community.

 

[Redbelly98]

Put another way, and briefly, the Mentors are tired of arguing amongst themselves without reaching consensus on how to moderate numerous CC/GW threads. That is the simple reality of the situation.

 

[Evo]

And we're talking about a forum with only 4-6 active members posting on a consistant basis requiring a tremendous amount of moderation.

 

[Moonbear]

It's sad it's had to come to this, but given the long history of a very few members creating an awful lot of moderation hassle because they CANNOT stick to the science (how often have you seen peer-reviewed journals being cited accurately and in context in any of the debates on climate change?), but rather the crank sites, political sources, blogs, popular press, and other sources that simply are a distraction from the actual science, I understand fully where this has come from and support the decision. The reality is that in recent times, I don't even think someone could start a thread on meteorology without it being hijacked into a global warming thread in short time.

Having been a mentor, I understand that when one issue, discussed actively by only a few members, ends up being a huge effort on the part of the mentors to moderate, it distracts them from being helpful in a lot of other areas and just makes the forum look bad.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What most concerns me is that PF not be a part of the problem of mythmaking. Honestly, I don't agree with this decision. I think this has always been a manageable problem. But given the apparent viable alternatives, no better options exist. Politics is the art of what's possible.

For the record, I don't think this is necessary.

Hopefully Greg will find a legitmate climate scientist to help moderate.

 

[Xnn]

The problem is that there are two equally legitimate camps within climate science. Some people choose one explanation, some choose another.

Greg has made a good decision on this and I fully aqree with it.

Whoa!

There is main stream science and the other side.

The main stream scientist are professionals, teach courses and publish peer reviewed papers.
Every few years, there is an International meeting where all the papers are skeptically reviewed. After debate, the current state of the scientific understanding of climate change is published. Levels of low understanding are identified and further work is encouraged to refine the understanding. It is recognized as an ongoing process.

Then there is the other side. I won't attack the other side, because I'm not sure I understand it. However, I find it disheartening that the other side is considered to be perfectly legitimate. How can that be?


Evo;

Can you explain to us why you consider the other side to be perfectly legitimate?


All other Mentors;

Do you feel there are 2 perfectly legitimate sides to global warming/climate change?


Thank-you for your reply.

 

[Astronuc]

This thread is for discussion the new policy, not for debating the merits or GW/CC or the validity of one side or the other in the debate.

 

[Evo]

Whoa!

There is main stream science and the other side.

The main stream scientist are professionals, teach courses and publish peer reviewed papers.
Every few years, there is an International meeting where all the papers are skeptically reviewed. After debate, the current state of the scientific understanding of climate change is published. Levels of low understanding are identified and further work is encouraged to refine the understanding. It is recognized as an ongoing process.

Then there is the other side. I won't attack the other side, because I'm not sure I understand it. However, I find it disheartening that the other side is considered to be perfectly legitimate. How can that be?


Evo;

Can you explain to us why you consider the other side to be perfectly legitimate?


All other Mentors;

Do you feel there are 2 perfectly legitimate sides to global warming/climate change?


Thank-you for your reply.

We're not discussing it here Xnn. You can look up MIT's Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Richard Lindzen as one example of a highly respected climate scientist that believes there are problems with the models and the results.

Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS. He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

Many agree that there are problems with the claims that are being made and they are very well known and respected climate scientists. There is not one correct side, that is why there is a dispute amongst the top scientists in the field.

 

[Wallace]

I see the problem now. I thought this was an issue of it being a nightmare for the staff keeping the barbarians out of the gates and agreed with the decision. Unfortunately it looks like they're already inside, and have access to the keys.

Even when Greg and other staff have pointed out that this thread is about the policy, not the so called scientific debate, looks like that can be ignored by one of the staff, who sounds instrumental in PF not being able to understand its own purpose and goals.

I've never played an active role (or even a passive one) in the Earth sciences forum, but this whole think now feels to me like a betrayal of everything that to me makes PF a place worth spending time at.

This is a crucial issue, and one where good clear science education is so important yet so lacking. It's a pity PF has had to retreat from playing any role because it's own staff couldn't get their house in order.

I have the utmost respect for all the staff and certainly couldn't claim I'd do a better job, but this is very disappointing. Not the decisions itself, which I initially accepted, but because of the very sad reasons why it has to be taken, which it appears is not quite how it was originally portrayed.

 

[Xnn]

Thanks Evo;

Now I understand better and agree that within the scientific arena, there can be areas where there is legitimate debate. This generally occurs where the level of understanding is low. However, there are many areas within science where our level of understanding is high and there really is no other legitimate side. The IPCC physical science basis document is the best source for that information. Individual scientist that disagree with the current science basis are free to publish. Their work will be reviewed and incorporated as appropriate.

The real problem with Climate Science is that there is also a heated political debate occurring about what to do about it. This is for good reason as the cost and consequences are enormous and global by nature. The world economy basically runs on carbon fuels, so there is not cheap way to stop emissions. However, long term consequence of climate change are dire.

So, it should not be surprising that there are many who wish to distort and confuse the science. Theirs is not a legitimate side. However, there is a lot that we already know very well. There is also a lot of work going on to improve our understanding of the science. Most everyone should agree that we really need to get this one right.

I would like to hope that the Physic Forum will help with furthering our level of understanding by clarifying what we know and don't know in a scientific sense. Some of us on the Earth Science forum strive to do that as well as we can. However, most of us are just interested amateurs and none of us are perfect.

Anyhow, getting off my soapbox; if you all need help I believe Sylas would make an excellent mentor. I'd volunteer myself too, but he's smarter and more careful than me.

 

[Evo]

Thanks Evo;

Now I understand better and agree that within the scientific arena, there can be areas where there is legitimate debate. This generally occurs where the level of understanding is low. However, there are many areas within science where our level of understanding is high and there really is no other legitimate side. The IPCC physical science basis document is the best source for that information. Individual scientist that disagree with the current science basis are free to publish. Their work will be reviewed and incorporated as appropriate.

The real problem with Climate Science is that there is also a heated political debate occurring about what to do about it. This is for good reason as the cost and consequences are enormous and global by nature. The world economy basically runs on carbon fuels, so there is not cheap way to stop emissions. However, long term consequence of climate change are dire.

So, it should not be surprising that there are many who wish to distort and confuse the science. Theirs is not a legitimate side. However, there is a lot that we already know very well. There is also a lot of work going on to improve our understanding of the science. Most everyone should agree that we really need to get this one right.

I would like to hope that the Physic Forum will help with furthering our level of understanding by clarifying what we know and don't know in a scientific sense. Some of us on the Earth Science forum strive to do that as well as we can. However, most of us are just interested amateurs and none of us are perfect.

Anyhow, getting off my soapbox; if you all need help I believe Sylas would make an excellent mentor. I'd volunteer myself too, but he's smarter and more careful than me.

You've always been a great poster XNN. Yes the problem is not the debate between the scientists, but the problem in moderating what falls inside that debate.

 

[Skyhunter]

Discussions of geology, seismology, vulcanism, plate techtonics, oceanography, etc...can still be discussed as long as people stick to discussing the subject itself.

All of which are related to climate.

Uh, well, prior to about 20 years ago ... all of them.

To us old codgers, climate change is very new. Yet we still managed to somehow fill our days with Earth science stuff.

Just because you only noticed it 20 years ago does mean that it did not exist before. The same geophysics that applied before 1988 are still applicable today. Climate change is currently the hottest topic in Earth sciences and will continue to be for the next decade, if not longer. My advice... get used to it.

Citing moderator inadequacy, or even more absurd, claiming there is a pro AGW and anti AGW camp in the scientific community, therefore only a certified climatologist is qualified to interpret the published literature is weak. I have learned more from discussions on this forum than anywhere, other than RealClimate. And yes I know it is a blog, therefore not a legitimate reference in the Earth forum, however it is a blog that is run by the very type of people that you are looking for to moderate here, climate scientists actively engaged in cutting edge climate research.

Just a guess here, but I'll bet that the moderator's discussion ended in a stalemate, just like most CC/AGW discussions do.

This is the best forum on the net to learn the nuances of the science, the rules and guidelines, enforced by the moderators filter out the political bias and allow us to get into the nuts and bolts of the underlying physics without all the hyperbolic absurdity that permeates the rest of the web. The dialogue is at an intermediate level, which means the layperson can participate. If there is not a single moderator, out of all the scientists here at PF, who can read and interpret the published literature accurately... then my estimation of PF is overblown.

Should prove interesting to watch this new policy enforced.

 

[Evo]

All of which are related to climate.

They can be discussed without dragging climate change into the discussion.

claiming there is a pro AGW and anti AGW camp in the scientific community,

No one has claimed that.

 

[sylas]

... This is the best forum on the net to learn the nuances of the science, the rules and guidelines, enforced by the moderators filter out the political bias and allow us to get into the nuts and bolts of the underlying physics without all the hyperbolic absurdity that permeates the rest of the web. ...

I want to endorse this. It's been true for the climate discussions, and its been true for a lot of other discussions as well. I've gained a heck of a lot here from cosmology discussions in particular, and (tossing humility to the winds) I believe I have given a heck of a lot as well, in climate and also in other areas. I've been highly appreciative of receiving the "science advisor" award; it is a genuine honour. But don't have any false humility about it; I believe I've earned it.

The SAs are not all equal. I'm not a patch on some of the others here, not even close. No false humility there either; I won't name names but there are SAs here who are astounding in their ability and their patience. I am an egg.

But I'm also a good choice to join those illustrious ranks, and I am determined to live up to a high standard set by those who have make physicsforums such a terrific site. I honestly have not seen anything better than this on the web for helping interested students, at all levels, get to grips with the wonderful world of modern physics, and I'm pleased as punch to be part of it. I'll continue to be part of it, no matter what happens with the climate debate.

I've had feedback from a number of regular posters as well, by PM, expressing appreciation of the site and of some threads where I've been able to give a bit of a help... not only in climate.

That's why this decision is such a terrible disappointment to me.

Even given the problems that undoubtedly exist, there's no other site quite like this one for the climate discussion, which has captured such wide popular interest and where so many people want to understand the issues better. There are plenty of advocacy sites, that exist to try and explain the majority viewpoint (which frankly I share without reservation). There are plenty of advocacy sites that exist to give a critique of the mainstream climate perspective. There are plenty of sites in which all kinds of people are able to express views with very little constraint.

Nowhere else, that I have seen, has there been a place quite like this, where the divergent views that do exist in working climate science have been able to be discussed, in a context where the merely absurd tend to get (mostly) reigned in and contained.

Obviously there have been problems. Clearly it has been a real strain for the mentors and for Greg as the owner of the site. But I think the problems are not actually that managing the discussion is over taxing. I think you've done extraordinarily well, and I fervently hope that sometime you will do so again.

For climate, I honestly think that I have been one of the most informed and knowledgeable of the regular contributors. I can think of at least one other active contributor who probably knows more, but has not been quite as regular, and (unfortunately, perhaps) has not been quite so... diplomatic. There may be others who have kept out of it; I don't know.

I have worked hard to be a positive contributor, consistent with the guidelines, welcoming and respectful of divergent viewpoints consistent with the guidelines and politely firm with viewpoints that are not consistent with the guidelines. I've clashed with other active and valued contributors once or twice, and that doesn't bother me. I've tried to reach out in those cases and find a way to continue to work well with them.

If anyone reading this thinks they might be in that category -- take it to heart. I don't mind disagreements at all. I respect people who can engage them positively. I'll always try to do the same myself, and will very much welcome any private communication to try and get us together again in a spirit of cooperation as we work through matters of incompatible difference.

I am not a professional expert, but I do have enough background to be a positive input and to recognize most of the various topics, and to quickly identify the different views that have been considered in the literature. It would be great to have a real honest to goodness working climate scientist as part of the discussions; but as I've said before, I don't think that's your biggest need.

It's been noted that there are a range of views on climate. That's obvious; but it is less obvious specifically which questions are credibly open to a range of resolutions, and which ones are all but resolved and contrary opinions are pretty much based on lack of understanding.

To be honest, I think a presumption of equal legitimacy is extraordinarily naive, and quite unlike the usual physicsforums approach. Perhaps I read to much into Evo's remark in [post=2522867]msg #17[/post]. But that doesn't matter. The point is that there are different views on the various questions of climate science, and the existing guidelines give a solid framework for looking those views which have at least some working scientific support, and allowing for a constructive and informative interaction between contributors who have differing views on which are more plausible.

I hope that with a bit of a break, the team will be able to manage this once more. I don't presume that; but there seems to be enough of a desire to find some workable solution that we can at least hope that one day this topic can be discussed once more.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[DaveC426913]

And we're talking about a forum with only 4-6 active members posting on a consistant basis requiring a tremendous amount of moderation.

I assume you've considered, and rejected, the idea of "deputizing" one of those 4-6 members?

 

[Bill Illis]

I've only spent a few weeks here and I certainly feel like I have gained a much greater understanding. I came here because the science was being discussed dispassionately and objectively (unlike "everywhere" else) and there were enough knowledgeable people around to correct any confusion. I broke a rule here or there (and made some rather dumb mistakes) but this field has areas which are still open to discussion, aspects that haven't been fully examined yet.

Is there a specialty of physics or of science that is more important than this at the current time? That is debateable but it is certainly important enough.

Anyway, I just want to say thanks to sylas, Xnn, Evo, Andre and others and the moderators.

 

[Skyhunter]

They can be discussed without dragging climate change into the discussion.

Hi. Come on in. Yes, I know there is an elephant in the living room but we don't talk about it. What's that smell?
Well, since it came from the elephant we can't discuss it. Just ignore it.

No one has claimed that.

Then what exactly does this mean?

The problem is that there are two equally legitimate camps within climate science. Some people choose one explanation, some choose another.

 

[Xnn]

Anyhow, this thread is not for debating.

It is for comments and suggestions while a search is underway for the proper experts.

So, could somebody explain what would be required of and expected of that person?

I would like to help in the search.

 

[Mark24]

I'm very sad to see this post. As someone who has mainly lurked on the PF forums, I've found the Earth forum - specifically the discussion on global warming - to be one of the best resources for understandable and unbiased science on the issue.

I've been a skeptic of AGW, mainly because I've found that those in the climate field have chosen to so completely ignore skeptical inquiries into their work that it has left the impression that there is far less credible evidence for AGW than there truly is. From an outside observer who is not privy to the nitty gritty details, and thanks in part to the stonewalling by many in the climate field in response to skeptical inquiries into their work, much in the field of climate science, particularly the models, have appeared to largely involve hand waving rather than real science to the outside observer.

I think there is a big difference between this forum and elsewhere that sets it apart. I am someone who has a limited knowledge about climate, having only taken one course even somewhat related to the subject, and that is Thermodynamics. I could go to RealClimate and mention a concern of mine that might be perfectly valid, but to the experts in the field who have spent their life studying climate, it may seem like such an elementary issue that they choose to ignore it. Or even worse, they see any dissenters as 'denialists' and simply write everyone including me off as unworthy of a reply when I am genuinely interested and have a legitimate inquiry.

But here, once I started browsing threads on global warming in the Earth section of the PF, I found a great number of my skeptical questions that I had not yet asked answered by the patient responses of the contributors. (especially sylas) These are genuine and legitimate inquiries that the average person who hasn't spent their life devoted to climate science might have, explained in full enough detail that those interested in science can understand. I haven't found another place on the internet like that, so it is very unfortunate that the decision has been made to ban GW discussion here.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hi. Come on in. Yes, I know there is an elephant in the living room but we don't talk about it. What's that smell?
Well, since it came from the elephant we can't discuss it. Just ignore it.

Pre-Big Bang discussion is also against PF rules. Do you think there can be no meaningful discussion of the current 13.7Gy-old universe without discussing how it got here in the first place?

 

[sylas]

Pre-Big Bang discussion is also against PF rules. Do you think there can be no meaningful discussion of the current 13.7Gy-old universe without discussing how it got here in the first place?

Uh... no, I don't believe pre-big bang discussion is against the rules at all. It is, in fact, a genuinely open question in science which is interesting and worth discussing, and we have a couple of members who are well placed to give excellent guidance on it.

Part of the guidance should involve reigning in random speculations that have no basis in working science. But if someone has a really good understanding of Big Bang cosmology, then they are in a good position to look at possible considerations for pre-Big Bang states. The biggest hiccup for a beginner is simply presuming that "time" is a well defined infinitely extensible backdrop on which you can locate events and speak easily about before and after. It is probably a lot more subtle than that. But I do not believe the topic is off limits, and I see no such restriction in the guidelines.

Sorry; I digress. But I think it important to clarify. Cheers -- sylas

 

[DaveC426913]

Uh... no, I don't believe pre-big bang discussion is against the rules at all. It is, in fact, a genuinely open question in science which is interesting and worth discussing, and we have a couple of members who are well placed to give excellent guidance on it.

It is not explicitly a banned topic, but it is more appropriately situated in the philosophy forum, since science really has nothng to say about it. Any pre-BB theories are untestible and unfalsifiable.

Nevertheless, the point remains: not discussing GW does not fobid discussion of Earth Sciences - just as not discussing pre-BB events does not forbid discussing our current universe

 

[sylas]

It is not explicitly a banned topic, but it is more appropriately situated in the philosophy forum, since science really has nothng to say about it. Any pre-BB theories are untestible and unfalsifiable.

You would have to take that up in the appropriate forum. I consider your statement here to be a common mistake; and that science does say a lot about it, without yet being in a position to resolve all the issues. The question is wide open, but it is not unconstrained. It would be a good thing to talk about sometime, and the right place for that, IMO, would be the cosmology forum. (Added in edit -->) Or even just read this recent thread, with some great posts by SAs with good cosmology expertise: [thread=330932]A little thought of before the Big Bang[/thread].)

Nevertheless, the point remains: not discussing GW does not fobid discussion of Earth Sciences - just as not discussing pre-BB events does not forbid discussing our current universe

I consider a ban on GW discussion to be an incredible omission with no comparable precedent. It leaves a gaping hole in the forum, and it is for reasons that are completely unrelated to concerns over it being science or philosphy. This makes our minor disagreement over the scientific standing of some aspects of cosmology doubly irrelevant.

This new policy may be necessary, given the current circumstances with mentors and members. This is a decision we shall have to live with, I think, though it is permitted to hope it might be temporary. In any case it is certainly a sad failure of our capacity to support a productive discussion of a very active area of science that has widespread interest.

This is, I presume, the guts of why the new policy is "regrettable". I'm accepting this new policy with regret as well. I am extremely disappointed it has come to this; but I am not despairing. Let's at least acknowledge that the ban certainly is regrettable, and that climate science should in an ideal world be something we discuss like any other area of active science. There are special problems with this discussion, but it isn't because of philosophical concerns about whether it is legitimately science.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[DaveC426913]

... science does say a lot about it...

Scientists may have a lot to say about it, but scientists are quite capable of taking off their science hat and putting on their philosophy hat. It doesn't mean everything any given scientist has to say is, by definition, scientifically-founded.

Anyway, this is a tangent. OK, so you don't get the analogy.

It is quite possible to discuss anteaters and tyrannosaurs without being able to discuss DNA, despite the fact that anteaters and tyrannosaurs are intimately-connected to DNA.

Better?

 

[story645]

much in the field of climate science, particularly the models, have appeared to largely involve hand waving rather than real science to the outside observer.

*shrugs* I work with data from one of the models, and the climate adviser (one of those really well known/respected people in the field) to the research group always gives a laundry list of ways the model is or may be broken and requires us to do a bunch of runs to account for/work with/catch that. His attitude made me think that within the community it's generally accepted that the models are a bit wonky.

but to the experts in the field who have spent their life studying climate, it may seem like such an elementary issue that they choose to ignore it

That's actually my reason for asking if we could discuss just the models/data here. It's really confusing to a newbie 'cause they're just really dense and full of all sorts of crazy math and science (there are like sixteen forms of wind in some of these models) and I'd love to be able to just discuss the nitty gritty hows of it all and forget the whole bigger picture.

 

[sylas]

It is quite possible to discuss anteaters and tyrannosaurs without being able to discuss DNA, despite the fact that anteaters and tyrannosaurs are intimately-connected to DNA.

Better?

Well sure, it's possible to limit discussion artificially in this kind of way, and for useful discussion to continue to take place in any case. I agree on that.

The crucial thing for me is this. There's no good reason from a science perspective to rule out GW topics. The only reason for such a sweeping ban, IMO, would be that mentors have not found a way to keep discussion appropriately focused on the science, and we are putting a fence around the area where they have not succeeded.

Sure, it is going to be possible to discuss various Earth science topics without raising GW. It is going to be a highly artificial restriction, and the enforcement of it may be harder than people realize. We'll see, I guess. The enforcement will, in my view, be a constant reminder that physicsforums has failed on this one matter to live up to its stated aims, and that's regrettable. It is worth thinking about how it could be fixed. Ultimately, the mentors will make that call, but Greg has allowed for people to make comments and suggestions in this thread.

I do not think we need to demand it must be fixed right away. The mentors have been struggling this for a long time, apparently. I can see ways to manage it better than has been done in the past. I've made a couple of concrete suggestions in [post=2523110]msg #26[/post] for things that could be done differently. I'll be continuing to look for widely acceptable solutions with those who have an interest, while at the same time abiding by the guidelines the mentors have put in place... including this new policy.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm very sad to see this post. As someone who has mainly lurked on the PF forums, I've found the Earth forum - specifically the discussion on global warming - to be one of the best resources for understandable and unbiased science on the issue.

Unless you are already an expert, how do you know that what you learned was correct? It certainly isn't because we had any qualified climate scientists moderating the discussions. It isn't because the threads were populated with qualified climate experts, because they weren't. Whether something seems to make sense, or not, is irrelevant unless you have the proper background.

Frankly, your post is a great example why [based on the constraints] I support the ban on the topic.

 

[sylas]

His attitude made me think that within the community it's generally accepted that the models are a bit wonky.

That's certainly true. Wonky is not quite the word I'd use, but the general fact that all the models are incorrect is pretty clear to people actually working with them. One phrase that iI have heard used is "climate models are always wrong, and often useful".

Argh. We have someone here now who could really give some great contributions on working with models, and what they can and cannot do. Welcome to physicsforums!

That's actually my reason for asking if we could discuss just the models/data here. It's really confusing to a newbie 'cause they're just really dense and full of all sorts of crazy math and science (there are like sixteen forms of wind in some of these models) and I'd love to be able to just discuss the nitty gritty hows of it all and forget the whole bigger picture.

Same here. In fact, that is one of my suggestions for how climate discussions could be managed better... having a much stronger expectation on topic drift.

Unfortunately, climate models are one of those topics that sometimes attract a lot of heat and sweeping pontifications without a lot of backing; both by people keen to defend the successes and by people keen to emphasize their limits. In the meantime, any focused consideration of how they work and what they do and how they are used all gets a bit lost.

If we could find a way to manage a discussion of climate models of the sort you envisage, we'd have solved the problem! (IMO) There would also be a huge educational benefit, IMO.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Chronos]

Climatology is a frustrating science. There are more variables than scientists. The geological record tells us it does as it pleases. Given the ebb and flow of climate change over the history of earth, I doubt human activity greatly disturbs whatever cycles are preferred by nature. Human contributions to the atmosphere are undoubtably significant, but only over a century or two. Climactic volatility supercedes the human factor by billions of years. Our hubris exceeds our understanding.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Climatology is a frustrating science. There are more variables than scientists. The geological record tells us it does as it pleases. Given the ebb and flow of climate change over the history of earth, I doubt human activity greatly disturbs whatever cycles are preferred by nature. Human contributions to the atmosphere are undoubtably significant, but only over a century or two. Climactic volatility supercedes the human factor by billions of years. Our hubris exceeds our understanding.

The geologic record also shows that species can change the climate and chemistry of the planet so dramtically that they can no longer exist - recall for example that oxygen-breathers once did not exist here.

What I don't understand is why so many people have opinions. While we may have more varialbles than scientists, we certainly have far more opinions than we do people qualified to have one.