The Warmest Year

I've gotten into a number of little debates over global warming so when I found this tid bit, I thought everyone would just be interested. Not sure where to put this:

Quote:

---

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

---

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+fin...rticle8383.htm

My my. You mean global warming may just be wrong.

To Virgil: So NASA was invaded by a virus of y2k vintage. I have a position on the global warming thing but it's just that,a position. Have you ever read any of John McPhee's books; his most famous is probably "Coming in to the Country". Very prolific, non-fiction and multi-fasceted subjects. Alot of geology. His information, while not addressing the GW issue, give you the wide view of both geologic and human movement on the earth. From his work many people have had to rethink thier place and the impact of many human lives on this particular planet. quasimodo1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I've gotten into a number of little debates over global warming so when I found this tid bit, I thought everyone would just be interested. Not sure where to put this:



http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+fin...rticle8383.htm

My my. You mean global warming may just be wrong.

---

There is a lot of raging back and forth about this on the net. Here is another take on what was said by the blogger you mention above.

"They are not global temperatures; the error only applies to the US data, and the corrections apply only to the US data. Unless the bug is bigger than either Steve McIntyre or GISS have disclosed, 1998 is still the officially the hottest year on record for the global temperature, and 1934 is only officially hotter in the US. Ace, you're getting a little carried away here. That being said, I would characterize the US network as being the most extensive and most studied; god only knows how unreliable some of the non-US data is that goes into the global record. That being said, the real story is not a few little corrections here and there by around 0.2 degrees C. The real story is that GISS data was obviously wrong but had gone unchecked before Steve's work, firstly because the IPCC choirboys never bother to check their own data (see also the MBH98 hockey stick), and secondly because it was hard to check because the GISS software and algorithms are kept secret (despite being paid for by public money). This makes it virtually impossible to replicate and check. Replication is a cornerstone of the scientific method; its not just bad science, its not really even science at all."

And I would add that we humans seem more interested in the battle for political control and the delight in being right than in whether we are going to face a possible end to life as we know it on the earth. That, it seems to me, is the real story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I've gotten into a number of little debates over global warming so when I found this tid bit, I thought everyone would just be interested. Not sure where to put this:



http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+fin...rticle8383.htm

My my. You mean global warming may just be wrong.

---

c'mon virge, is that all you have is a day where the temperature was hotter than one day in 199
to show that global warming doesn't exist? :lol: :lol: in the excerpted report below, the "ppm" means parts per million, a standard unit for measuring the concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere, a far more accurate measure in its role in the phenomenon of global warming than a single day's temperature. for all interested i put the link to the report where this data can be found in more detail, which includes graphs and a host of additional info on global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a consortium of hundreds of the top scientists throughout the world. here's what they had to say about global warming in their 2007 report:


This Summary for Policymakers was formally approved at the 10th Session
of Working Group I of the IPCC, Paris, February 2007.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf


Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM-2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than
has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 – 2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3}

The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions4 increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8] 5 GtC

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995 -2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature9 (since 1850). The updated 100-year linear trend (1906–2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to
0.92]°C is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901-2000 given in the TAR of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the
last 100 years. The total temperature increase from 1850 – 1899 to 2001 – 2005 is 0.76 [0.57 to 0.95]°C. Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over
land and zero over the oceans) on these values. {3.2}

Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system.
Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise (see Table SPM-1). {5.2, 5.5}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLupin

There is a lot of raging back and forth about this on the net. Here is another take on what was said by the blogger you mention above.

"They are not global temperatures; the error only applies to the US data, and the corrections apply only to the US data. Unless the bug is bigger than either Steve McIntyre or GISS have disclosed, 1998 is still the officially the hottest year on record for the global temperature, and 1934 is only officially hotter in the US. Ace, you're getting a little carried away here. That being said, I would characterize the US network as being the most extensive and most studied; god only knows how unreliable some of the non-US data is that goes into the global record. That being said, the real story is not a few little corrections here and there by around 0.2 degrees C. The real story is that GISS data was obviously wrong but had gone unchecked before Steve's work, firstly because the IPCC choirboys never bother to check their own data (see also the MBH98 hockey stick), and secondly because it was hard to check because the GISS software and algorithms are kept secret (despite being paid for by public money). This makes it virtually impossible to replicate and check. Replication is a cornerstone of the scientific method; its not just bad science, its not really even science at all."

And I would add that we humans seem more interested in the battle for political control and the delight in being right than in whether we are going to face a possible end to life as we know it on the earth. That, it seems to me, is the real story.

---

i'm confused by what you mean by IPCC choirboys never bother to check their own data. please explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryLupin

There is a lot of raging back and forth about this on the net. Here is another take on what was said by the blogger you mention above.

"They are not global temperatures; the error only applies to the US data, and the corrections apply only to the US data. Unless the bug is bigger than either Steve McIntyre or GISS have disclosed, 1998 is still the officially the hottest year on record for the global temperature, and 1934 is only officially hotter in the US. Ace, you're getting a little carried away here. That being said, I would characterize the US network as being the most extensive and most studied; god only knows how unreliable some of the non-US data is that goes into the global record. That being said, the real story is not a few little corrections here and there by around 0.2 degrees C. The real story is that GISS data was obviously wrong but had gone unchecked before Steve's work, firstly because the IPCC choirboys never bother to check their own data (see also the MBH98 hockey stick), and secondly because it was hard to check because the GISS software and algorithms are kept secret (despite being paid for by public money). This makes it virtually impossible to replicate and check. Replication is a cornerstone of the scientific method; its not just bad science, its not really even science at all."

And I would add that we humans seem more interested in the battle for political control and the delight in being right than in whether we are going to face a possible end to life as we know it on the earth. That, it seems to me, is the real story.

---

End of life as we know it? Hahaha. :lol: It makes me laugh. Even if it's true, it's a fraction of a degree. Come on, Mary. You know how apocalyptic urban legends have been around since the beginning of humanity.

All I know is that I'm living the coldest and wettest summer in the UK since Idontknowwhen. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

End of life as we know it? Hahaha. :lol: It makes me laugh. Even if it's true, it's a fraction of a degree. Come on, Mary. You know how apocalyptic urban legends have been around since the beginning of humanity.

---

You are so right about apocalyptic legends. Being an atheist does not exempt one from the need to see oneself as in the middle of the DRAMA. I don't at all dispute that. However, the fraction of the degree thing...what we don't understand yet is how little it takes to make the Earth uninhabitable for us. And I really mean "we don't understand." Whether it is a fraction of a degree or a whole bunch of degrees is, as yet, unknown. What we can see is what is happening. The loss of ice in the poles for example. We can see from simple, observable things like that, that something is happening. We also know from history what happens when the ambient climactic temperature changes a little (ice ages, for example) and we know what happens to animals and plants when that happens (population massive migration and extinction). It could be could survive just the temperature change that seems to be happening (what ever the reason) but the problem is that our vast numbers and our lifestyle is predicated on crops and animal herds being as they are and where they are. If that changes too much then no matter how adaptive we are, without the support of a suitable ecological system, we are going to, at best, suffer horrendous losses.

Quote:

---

Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 11:59pm BST 05/04/2003

Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.

Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating."

This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

---

[SNIP]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...%2Fnclim06.xml

I asked you once why you thought Global Warming was BS and as you know I am really uneducated on the whole thing. I don't know enough about anything to say one way or the other whether Global Warming is real or a scam but I don't see the harm in at least trying to use alternate energy sources (just in case!)

I did watch Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (it was on cable last week) and I tried to be objective. In fact, I am so suspicious of everything in the news and on television these days that I am incapable of uttering a simple declarative sentence. And since I am not a scientist myself I just can't say - it all boils down to who is the most convincing.

So, what is the harm in just trying to be a little more earth friendly? (And as I type this, I know that I won't be riding the Biofuel bus to work tommorrow. I'll be driving my carbon emitting truck). It's just really hard to do the Earth Friendly thing because it costs so much.


And then there are all those reports of "Global Warming Misinformation"

Even so, I would still rather be safe than sorry. Is this about oil? I drive a truck that runs on gas that comes from oil because there isn't another feasible choice for me at this point. But if there were, I would choose the more earth friendly option as long as I could afford to eat also.

Can't we just grow corn and run the cars on that? Who would suffer? Of course, if there is a drought, and the corn doesn't grow, then what will we do?

I would be really disappointed though, if I found out that the global warming naysayers were participating in a misinformation campaign (like cigarettes)

At the same time, I would also be very disappointed (and pissed) to find out that global warming is a bunch of BS hatched to promote the sale of fuel made from corn oil or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

i'm confused by what you mean by IPCC choirboys never bother to check their own data. please explain.

---

Those weren't my words but IPCC means "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" The site is here.

Ok Shalot. Read this article first: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...it/nwarm05.xml. Let me also say there is honest debate on both sides. I don't believe either are putting out misinformation. Some people believe that the fraction of a degree warming, if real, is man caused. And if it is, then just switching from a few little things is not going to change that. People's lives are going to be radically different and in my opinion to a lower standard of living. Yeah, rich people will always be able to afford air conditoning, but it would be beyond the affordability of the average person if you really needed to solve this problem. That's just a palpable example. The ripple effect of such a reduction in standard of living would be felt in many ways.

And then here are my personal thoughts which refer back to that article. As I see the issue, it can be broken to four categories: (1) Measurement, (2) Causation, (3) Severity, and (4) Solution. I’ll take each one individually.

(1) Measurement. This doesn’t seem to get a lot of debate but I question it. We are talking about measuring a small fraction of a degree across the whole world and then averaging it over a year’s time. And then comparing it to what we think it was a hundred years ago, and how did we measure it then. If I were a manager on an engineering project where this measurement was critical to the design, this would be the first place I would question. How could I have confidence in the accuracy of such a measurement? Two different thermometers taking your temperature wouldn’t give you this kind of accuracy. And we have confidence that across the globe we are accurate? Especially when one considers the different heat capacities (heat capacity being the ability of a material to retain heat; for instance it takes a lot more heat to get the water you are trying to boil hot rather than the steel pot it’s in) of the different materials across the earth. What exactly are we measuring, air temperature, ocean temperature, earth temperature?

(2) Causation. This is what the article at the top of the thread was debating for the most part. How do we know that there is a direct causal link between human activity and global warming? Like the author of the article say, we are talking about a fraction of a degree over a hundred years, and we know the earth has gone over several degrees of temperature change over time. Even if we’re measuring accurately, this is within a tolerance band of known existing variation. How do we know whether this global warming is a natural phenomena? There are all sorts of contributing factors that could contribute, solar temperature variation, earth core temperature variation, even alignment of planets could cause temperature variation on the earth. The author’s point was given the complexity of the situation, there is no statistical (one has to perform an analysis of variance to identify causal link) proof that a fraction of a degree is caused by human activity.

(3) Severity. I know we’ve been brainwashed with these predictions of catastrophes if the earth warms. Hahahaha. Fear is the biggest political motivator. We don’t know wat a few degrees means. The earth has fluctuated a few degrees over its history. And these chicken-littles (yes I mean you Al Gore) all suggest that the temperature increase is either linear or hyperbolic. How do they know that? Actually it’s quite possible it’s asymptotic, that is that as you increase temperature, other factors such as increased water vapor (remember the ice caps have added moisture to the system) absorbs heat, and limiting the temperature increase. It’s a complex system. No one is sure at what point it will level off.

(4) Solution. Well who says that reducing energy is the only solution, if such a problem exists? If a person has a heart problem you can attack the root cause and transplant his heart, but usually that’s not practical. Normally you address the symptoms, by keeping his blood thinner and prescribing drugs that increase heart compression and keep blood pressure low. Why do we need to address the root cause when we could address the symptom? Couldn’t we come up with a way to filter out greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere or reduce the heat that comes in from the sun by screening it? Just brainstorming. Or adding more water vapor to the atmosphere, which would restrain temperature growth. Why are all the solutions a limit on people’s standard of living? Limiting transfer of energy means a reduction of standard of living, and I am willing to bet that despite pontification from many, the overwhelming majority of people when real limits are placed will tell you to shove it. Does the anger over the recent gas price increases suggest anything?

So, one has to ask oneself, are we measuring correctly; if so, are humans the cause; if so, how severe is it; if so, will the solution cause more pain than the problem. And it’s corollary, what will be the unintended consequences of implementing a solution.

Frankly I’m skeptical on each aspect of this. I don’t believe we have enough understanding of the problem and the solutions to make a prudent decision. Especially when it means reducing people’s standard of living and curtailing the growth of the people in the third world. And don’t give me this crap that you are only hurting the corporations.

Still, I like the idea of "clean" fuels. The city bus, which now runs on biofuel, no longer emits a stinking cloud of black smoke and fumes. Now the bus does not smell and choke me when I am walking down the road or behind it in the car.

And in most of the towns I have been in and in the one I live in, the road system is not set up for modes of transportation other than cars. It's not like Amsterdam where there are cars, trains, and people going to work on their bikes. If someone rides a bike here, he's usually wearing spandex and a helmet and he rides on the side of a two-lane road and makes everyone mad at him for not using the bike trail (since he is obviously not going anywhere in that bike outfit and he is only out for the exercise)

And we know we can run the cars on fuels made from corn, so why not? I mean, yes there is that whole drought problem, but there has to be a solution other than using oil. Especially with the gas prices so high. Would it lower our standard of living to switch over to corn fuel in the name of global warming? Or just because it doesn't cost 3.00 a gallon on a good day? And would it really cut into the food supply to make the switch?

Does anyone drive a car that goes on biofuel?

The Global Warming has already asumed power and weathers are changing tremendously.The only thing which could be done now is to slow its pace and hope that the idea of biofuels dig in,before its too late!

Ok, I've been trying to decide whether to post here or not. My time at college did spend a decent amount of time studying the subject, however by no means should what I say be considered a "expert opinion" I am not. My main field of study is water. A suggestion before I start for those of you who have only been exposed to Greenpeace (agenda problems) & Al Gore's little film (the only thing inconvienant about which is that being that like with all things politicians put there name to it is politically motivated, I am sure if W was more known for windfarms than oil a documentary would be made about the dangers of those instead - however that is enough current politics from me) Try and find a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist by Lomborg. He writes from the other viewpoint - he is a scientist who has studied the subject, and despite disagreements in the scientific community as to the correctness of his data he does at least try to use it in the correct manner.

Ok, now to the points. Virg is pretty much spot on that the four main parts we need to look at are: Measurement, Causation, Severity (I would change the terminology here to Effect personally though) & Solution

So here goes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

(1) Measurement. This doesn’t seem to get a lot of debate but I question it. We are talking about measuring a small fraction of a degree across the whole world and then averaging it over a year’s time. And then comparing it to what we think it was a hundred years ago, and how did we measure it then. If I were a manager on an engineering project where this measurement was critical to the design, this would be the first place I would question. How could I have confidence in the accuracy of such a measurement? Two different thermometers taking your temperature wouldn’t give you this kind of accuracy. And we have confidence that across the globe we are accurate? Especially when one considers the different heat capacities (heat capacity being the ability of a material to retain heat; for instance it takes a lot more heat to get the water you are trying to boil hot rather than the steel pot it’s in) of the different materials across the earth. What exactly are we measuring, air temperature, ocean temperature, earth temperature?

---

You are correct the method of measuring doesnt get talked about much in lay conversation. I can assure you though it is discussed at the scientific levels. The problem is that a lot of groups/politicians/journalists dont understand the science and as a result make stupid comments on both sides - ranging from if we dont do something drastic now we'll be dead in five years to its all a myth nothing is wrong. A lot of people claim to have the data, but when you ask for it they cant back it up.

One of the main problems with the data is the way it is collected. Most of the real data is collected at testing sites at/near the poles. These figures are then extrapolated to give estimates and provide models for what could happen in the future (by the way modelling gets a pretty poor press from the anti global warming side but we accept it quite happily for a variety of other subjects) The problem is using this data, and saying it could effect the rest of the world in a similar way

Ok, so that is the issue with the measuring. However it is not the end of the story. The original article is imho quite disingenuous when it suggests because one freak day was hotter in previous years it somehow means global warming is not taking place. We have to look at averages over a group of years, finding one day means very little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

(2) Causation. This is what the article at the top of the thread was debating for the most part. How do we know that there is a direct causal link between human activity and global warming? Like the author of the article say, we are talking about a fraction of a degree over a hundred years, and we know the earth has gone over several degrees of temperature change over time. Even if we’re measuring accurately, this is within a tolerance band of known existing variation. How do we know whether this global warming is a natural phenomena? There are all sorts of contributing factors that could contribute, solar temperature variation, earth core temperature variation, even alignment of planets could cause temperature variation on the earth. The author’s point was given the complexity of the situation, there is no statistical (one has to perform an analysis of variance to identify causal link) proof that a fraction of a degree is caused by human activity.

---

You are quite right that the worlds temperature has fluctuated throughout the history of the planet. In order for us to suggest a statistically causal link we would have to show a variation of a variation, something I have yet to see.

However, there is another aspect to this. Even if it is not us personally causing this, do we have a responsibility to attempt to curtail it in someway if we can do so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

(3) Severity. I know we’ve been brainwashed with these predictions of catastrophes if the earth warms. Hahahaha. Fear is the biggest political motivator. We don’t know wat a few degrees means. The earth has fluctuated a few degrees over its history. And these chicken-littles (yes I mean you Al Gore) all suggest that the temperature increase is either linear or hyperbolic. How do they know that? Actually it’s quite possible it’s asymptotic, that is that as you increase temperature, other factors such as increased water vapor (remember the ice caps have added moisture to the system) absorbs heat, and limiting the temperature increase. It’s a complex system. No one is sure at what point it will level off.

---

Ok, some more suggested reading here. Scientific American a month or two ago (will look out exact issue later) ran a very interesting article regarding increased severity of tropical storms in El Nino years with an increase a few degrees on water temperature. Their findings showed storms would be a lot more severe in these conditions, but slightly less in non El Nino years.

Now quickly addressing Water Vapour. Water Vapour is in fact a large contributor to the greenhouse effect, the release of it is not as positive as suggested in your point.

You are correct though it may level off as it is currently, and certainly in a large amount of the western world the air is a lot cleaner than it used to be. As an example think thick black smog covering cities in the industrial revolution. We have made excellent technological advances to diminish these issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

(4) Solution. Well who says that reducing energy is the only solution, if such a problem exists? If a person has a heart problem you can attack the root cause and transplant his heart, but usually that’s not practical. Normally you address the symptoms, by keeping his blood thinner and prescribing drugs that increase heart compression and keep blood pressure low. Why do we need to address the root cause when we could address the symptom? Couldn’t we come up with a way to filter out greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere or reduce the heat that comes in from the sun by screening it? Just brainstorming. Or adding more water vapor to the atmosphere, which would restrain temperature growth. Why are all the solutions a limit on people’s standard of living? Limiting transfer of energy means a reduction of standard of living, and I am willing to bet that despite pontification from many, the overwhelming majority of people when real limits are placed will tell you to shove it. Does the anger over the recent gas price increases suggest anything?

---

Yes, the solutions being proposed by groups such as Greenpeace are completely unworkable. We need to look at other technological advances or solutions to the problem. The main thing imo we should do is get back to using nuclear power. There is too much scaremongering, and fear of things such as Chernobyl. However nuclear is in reality quite safe if things are done in the correct way, and it is in fact one the cleaner ways to produce energy. Not everywhere is suitable for solar panels & wind farms despite how much the anti nuclear lobby would have you believe so.

The really important objective however is to get govt spending working on technological solutions instead of bureaucratic nonsense like the Kyoto Protocol. (Incidentally the only thing I agree with W about is that Kyoto is stupid - we just have different reasons for disagreeing with its validity)

Great post Kilt. You present a rational understanding, and frankly now you're the only person around here I'm willing to listen to on this issue. Let me highlight two things you said:

Quote:

---

You are quite right that the worlds temperature has fluctuated throughout the history of the planet. In order for us to suggest a statistically causal link we would have to show a variation of a variation, something I have yet to see.

---

That has been my point entirely! It's hard to explain that to people who are not technically minded.

Quote:

---

Yes, the solutions being proposed by groups such as Greenpeace are completely unworkable. We need to look at other technological advances or solutions to the problem. The main thing imo we should do is get back to using nuclear power. There is too much scaremongering, and fear of things such as Chernobyl. However nuclear is in reality quite safe if things are done in the correct way, and it is in fact one the cleaner ways to produce energy. Not everywhere is suitable for solar panels & wind farms despite how much the anti nuclear lobby would have you believe so.

The really important objective however is to get govt spending working on technological solutions instead of bureaucratic nonsense like the Kyoto Protocol. (Incidentally the only thing I agree with W about is that Kyoto is stupid - we just have different reasons for disagreeing with its validity)

---

As you can see the by all the apocalyptic-end-of-the worlders, chicken littles, the scaremongering has worked. People think the world is going to end in ten years. (For example that Al Gore movie predicted oceans would rise 20-25 feet and the very scientist who are pushing for gloabal warming admit that they are predicting a rise of only 17 inches. I didn't convert that to metric for people, but 25 feet is the second floor of a house and 17 inches is below your knee. That is scaremongering!!) There are things we can do to make the environment better, make energy have less of an environemntal impact (solar and nuclear are things I favor), yes develop the technologies you mentioned, both through gov't and private means. Of course this provides technical people like us more jobs, but hey I'm not asking for it. In my heart of hearts, I still feel that global warming is not mostly (there may be a small component that is) human caused. My hunch is that we're in a natural cycle of warming.