The following discussion applies to the unspoken default assumptions hidden behind almost ANY current article on the topic of “global warming”, which always really means “global warming allegedly caused by human activities”. The whole discussion is a convenient congruence of the confusion of correlation in time with causation. Yet even this intellectual dishonesty requires the disregard of known facts about prior temperature histories far more dramatic than “3 degrees fifty years from now”.
The eruption of Mount Pinatubo and Mount Saint Helens together contributed more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than the last 500 years of human "civilization".
Can you spell "Ice Age"? It certainly is warmer now than then. Glaciers have advanced and retreated, as far as we know, repeatedly. There is little doubt that the “wobble” inherent in the motions of the earth are the contributing factors to the historical periodicity of past ice ages.
We are unable to predict the weather for this exact time next month or next year. I am reluctant to shout "the sky is falling" because all the necessarily incomplete computer models claim they know what will happen in 50 years.
A recent conference on the thinning of polar ice had to be cancelled - because of impassable ice and snow storms.
How shall we persuade India and China to stop the increase in their standard of living so that we can prevent their "contribution" to "global warming"?
I recommend the recent novel "State of Fear", a 2004 novel by Michael Crichton.
See also here:
And video here:
See also the interview with by Henrik Svensmark at page 46 in the July 2007 issue of Discover Magazine. “His studies show that the sun plays a major role in global warming”. Solar activity and cosmic rays are instrumental in determining the warming (and cooling) of the earth. Cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, and high levels of solar activity suppresses the emission of cosmic rays. With fewer clouds, the earth warms faster. This model alone accounts for most of the warming of the past century.
What about the greenhouse gas emissions from the record 300,000 acre forest fire in Utah during the week of July 9, 2007? Or any other forest fires for that matter?
I could go on for hours. The inconvenient truth is that nobody wants to hear the viewpoint I have just expressed.
When Al Gore's house no longer has a carbon footprint that is 30-50 times greater than my house does, ask me again. Until then, the global warming politicians are merely asking for even more power, in a pseudo-scientific way.
Did I mention I have strong opinions on this subject?