Dennis,
  We already have broken the record stretching back 650,000 years, of total ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 correlates directly with temprature. I.E.temprature at record levels. 130(approx) degree record breakers. And 11 years of the last 12 all record breakers. If the pace of increased Co2 levels/warming stays steady. We very likely will see global temps at devastating levels. Way above 140 in large tracts of currently heavily populated areas. And all of the so many other correlating ecosystem effects globally. Beyond science and into one Gentlemans presentation. (of the facts associated with the near monopoly of scientific expert conclusion. And as reported on this page the recent statement that there is a “90%” certainty on these conclusions.) Your comments regarding the supposed fear mongering reminded me of a brief segment in, “An Inconvenient truth” when Gore discusses the chinese and japanese character for “crisis”. Specifically its duel use as “opportunity”. Fear does not cross my mind with this scientific phenomenon. Opportunity does however.
And after all is said and done, as Frank and you mentioned. Many of the anthropogenic inputs leading to the effects have other seperate negative impacts on our lives and other species. Acting on this aggresively and with no further delay gives the next generations of Earthlings a healthier world.
(note-though the next generations will not be of my DNA. I do have neices and nephews I care deeply for. And in the end I care deeply for homo-sapien-sapien and our future. But luckily we don’t want kids. (though I dont fault those who have a kid or 2.) Because population is a big fat ball of turd on the pan smokin’, almost on fire.
Better days ahead!
‘toe in idaho

Why does not one person commenting on the effects humans are having on the earth including global warming, pollution, etc, mention the word POPULATION? We are now six billion plus and counting.

Population control is the only practical way to reduce the negative effects of humans on our planet in a long term, meaningful manner.

I know that it is not pc to make such a statement and I am not a violent person that advocates wars, genocide, etc, but there it is. Fire away.

The biggest polluters on the face of the planet are the underdeveloped but rapidly developing poor countries such as China and India. Poverty and lack of industrialization leads to clearing of the rain forests for land to cultivate just for food. Pollution and global warming, if it is happening in any long-term, dramatic fashion that will lead to any substantial consequences are largely seperate issues. Most human pollution could not be linked to global warming even with the data sparce, speculative models used by the panic peddlers to sell global warming. The U.S. and Western Europe have the strictest environmental laws in the world and there is virtually no evidence that human behavior is raising the earth’s temperatures.  Historical data on earth’s temperatures is nonexistant other than what can be inferred with large error bounds from poor models using speculatively derived data gained from ice core samples at the polar caps.  We didn’t cause the ice age and we aren’t causing any changes in earth’s temperatures now if they are even changing much.

For those not believing the human connection to global warming, look at the Amazon. The destruction of the forest has reduced the annual rainfall by 50% in many regions, the dry season is becoming a drought season and the temperature in the air and water is rising.  Humans have definitely the ability to really screw up the natural environment.  Look at the Mediterranean. 2000 years ago the Roman in their pursuit of greed and worldly goods cut down all the forests that once made this area a fertile ground for harvests and minds. If you see Greece, Italy, North-Africa now, it is an arid place that can nor feed itself, even after 1500 years.
The world is not that big and it is not a stretch of the imagination that we can destroy it and in fact we are destroying it.

In December 2006 the EPA loosened restrictions on the reporting of hazardous wastes for industry and manufacturing facilities.  Prior to the restrictions, companies reported hazardous wastes under 227 kilograms on a short form.  Now they will be able to use the short form when a staggering less than 2268 kilograms (an approximately 10 fold increase) are produced or no more than 907 kilograms of the total are released to the environment. Check out:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1218/3

Also, Bush is closing “all the libraries run by the EPA and getting rid of pesky and superfluous scientific documents found in those libraries” according to Christopher Brauchli in his report “What They Don’t Want You to Read Could Save Your Life.”  He also states, “In the 2007 library services budget requested by the EPA, Mr Bush cut $2 million out of the $2.5 million requested.”  Check out:

http://www.counterpunch.org/brauchli12272006.html

If none of the global warming or despicable polluting of our environment were true why go to all the trouble of “destroying the evidence?”

What I would really like to know is how the Mayans got it right! I mean, their calendar stopped in Dec, 2012! Not only was the Mayan calendar more accurate than the one in current use but it accurately predicted solar system events thousands of years into the future.
Perhaps they were aware of the Earths orbit changing from circular to eliptical on a predictable timetable? If so, how did they know this? Most scientists believe that the main driver of climate change is related to changes in the earths orbit (eliptical to circular) combined with solar output which seems tied to sunspot activity. I am not saying that we have not changed the climate but I dont think we are the primary driver.
Too bad those darn Spaniards burned most of the Mayan texts, otherwise, we might put to good use the information contained in them.
Just goes to prove the old axiom…a man that cant read is just as ignorant as one that doesnt read…right Gorgie?

Those of you who remain unconvinced of global warming actually believe that humans have absolutely “NO” affect on the earths ecology? Wow! So I guess the next time there is an oil spill, we should simply leave it there and let mother-nature fix the problem? Why stop there? We can also dump raw sewage into our lakes and rivers because similarly as you say, there’s no tell-tale evidence of global warming. While we’re at it, the next time you get a quick bite from McDonald’s or Taco Bell, just throw your trash out the window. They trash and exploit the earth so why not you? 

If any of the these things I wrote disturb your conscience, why should the reality of global warming be any different? If your conscience tells you tossing trash onto a street is incomprehensible than why is global warming acceptable? You can tout about the ice age, glaciers and the tilting of the earths axis
but can you truly admit Global warming has absolutely nothing to do with human consumption and waste? If you so much as admit to an inch of probability, there must be some truth to the claims.

What gains do those have in defending the earth compared to those who defend the oil industry? Why all the coy rhetoric? If those lobbying for environmental reform had the same cash flow as those who oppose, life and our environment would be much different.

Bush got a standing ovation at the New York stock-exchange last week not because he’s a great leader but because major power players get rich off of consumption and waste-oh and some got big-time rich from the Persian Gulf War, 911, Katrina, etc, etc. I have no problem with people getting rich but not at the expense of mankind’s future and the exploitation of resources from poorer nations or poorer communities. 

If you buy into the idea that so-called tree hugger’s are all irresponsible, uneducated, undisciplined, unfaithful hippies with no direction, you’re political position is probably to the Right. This is the problem. The political right or the more conservative right have been spoon fed self righteousness for so long and for so-many generations that they’ll never waiver from their position no matter how many facts you present them. The tree huggers are weak and poor and do not have the skills to be successful, therefore their science is not acceptable unless there is a higher probability of financial success than oil. The day oil companies transition and monopolize the patents for environmental friendly fuel alternatives with equal or better profits is when we’ll see a change in western economics and politics. Until then, a major war or some other catastrophic series of events will need to take place. This arrogance or ignorance is evident of the Iraq war. It’s failing miserably and only now when the damage is done do some of the politically Right join the band-wagon of the Left. Albeit the betting is to salvage the next elections.

I’ll say the same thing I said to my father in law in 1988.

Even if global climate change is not caused by humans (and I believe it is) there is nothing but short-term benefit to be gained from burning fossil fuels. A mature, rational society would err on the side of caution and work very hard, like Manhattan Project hard, to develop alternatives because if the science is correct (and it seems like it is) the CONSEQUENCES of doing nothing are enormous.

Oil is much more useful making plastics and other materials than it is being burned inside our cars just so we can blow it out the tailpipe in a noxious brew of pollutants and greenhouse gases. After it’s burned it’s gone forever. Entropy, baby.

The naysayers are simply unevolved selfish children who love their TOYS more than their children and grandchildren and will use any rationale to keep them. They say the economy will suffer if we act too quickly. Oh really? What’s the alternative? Buying future beachfront property for your grand children about three miles from the coast? 

Come on - not everyone needs an SUV. If I could get one over caffeinated Westside Los Angeleno to trade in the YUKON for a Prius or better yet a BICYCLE I will be able to sleep better. That’s true offsetting.

Come on folks trade in the DAKOTA for at least a 30mpg+ small car. Or get a motorcycle and have some real fun. Walk to the market – ride a bike – burn some calories.

Hummers and Expeditions etc. are a WASTE of resources. Just because we can afford it doesn’t mean we ought to have one. Our Hummers and giant houses and over lit over air-conditioned living and working spaces along with the stores and malls are changing the climate and incidentally there is a straight line between it all and our national security. Think about it. You know it’s true.

Gasoline isn’t expensive enough otherwise we wouldn’t see 20 cars sitting in the drive thru at the In-n-Out Burger burning gasoline and spewing greenhouse gases. Too lazy to park, turn off the engine and walk in to the store and pick up that 1500 calorie double double, shake and fries!

What a country!

That’s why we need a gas tax. I’d start with $1 a gallon and increase it $1 a year until it hit $5 a gallon. Too much you say? Gasoline is $10 a gallon in Norway. They export oil and have one of the highest standards of living in the world; higher than the US. Then use the money to get serious about mass transit and alternative fuels. If we wanted we could cover LA County with light rail in about 5 years if we had the will and the money, maybe 10. 

Yes, a gas tax would hit the poor the hardest - so make it up them by raising the minimum wage to $10 and index it to inflation. Not just the core rate - include food and energy. Henry Ford paid his workers enough so they could afford the products they were making. People would learn to conserve and maybe not get in line behind 10 other cars at the drive thru. We could stop worrying so much about who has oil and we might discover some purpose as a nation besides dying with the most TOYS. Energy self-sufficiency, environmental stewardship and enhanced national security, what’s not to like. 

Think about it - you know it’s true.

Thank you Dr. Solomon.  As part of the Millennium Development Goals we have vowed to clean up or environmental practices.  Not only will this save our one and only planet from destruction but it will help eliminate poverty everywhere.  There is no reason not to adopt environmentally friendly practices, what good do the unfriendly ones do you? I mean really! what good at all?

Global Warming (if true) will have many benefits.  For starters, it will be much easier to drill in Alaska and Canada without all that damn snow.

it’s 50 degrees on my front porch today at noon. sure doesn’t feel warm. however that doesn’t mean i don’t believe in it. i will be dead before i have oceanfront property since i live 15 miles from the ocean. still i’m looking forward to it. the best thing about global warming; those of you with children won’t have to worry about how they will pay off bush’s titanic national debt. the world may not be around long enough for that to happen. i love global warming. mankind brought down by hubris. sounds poetic.

OK, Dennis…if there is no agreement amongst ALL peer reviewed articles and 95% of all scientists in general, where are the peer-reviewed articles published by whoomever you are dreaming about? Please provide links.

Dennis,
I’m sure you know more about global warming then most scientists—it’s too bad they didn’t invite you to sit on their panel. 

“In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?_r=1&th;=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1170633796-R67PdlKBW5WPcyntvSKqcQ

Dr. Solomon’s courage and integrity should shame all those government “scientists” who cravenly subvert truth to placate the President and his corporate masters.

Global warming, if it is even occurring, is most likely not caused by humans.  Despite the panic peddlers in the media presenting global warming as a fact, there is real debate in the scientific community about whether or not it is even occurring and if so whether or not human activity could possibly cause such a phenomena.  Throughout the earth’s history there have been dramatic changes in climate and none have been caused by its inhabitants.  The ice age was not caused by human behavior nor is it likely that what have been up to now nearly imperceptible changes in temperatures, with weak theories of how these changes are due to human behavior, caused by what we do.  So relax, the sky is not falling, the world’s problems are not all America’s fault and the only reason for not using more oil is that the pollution caused when we burn it is bad for our health and we fund radical, religious fanatical killers in the Middle East when we buy their oil.  Nuclear energy is the way to go as is drilling in Antartica along with increased fuel efficiency, increased gasoline taxes going to fund public transportation, ethanol production and solar energy.

You are all wasting your time.

Everyone of you.

Down with The New World Order.

Down with Bush.

Save your country.

Stock pile weapons.

Don’t pay your taxes.

Down with our fascist regime.

Wake up.

Wake up.

Wake up.

Wake up.

“particularly admirable and courageous act considering that she works for the George W. Bush-led U.S. government, which has been notoriously hostile toward government scientists who speak out on global warming.”

It’s beyond belief that in 2007, scientists need to circumvent bureaucratic machinations, to warn the public about global climate change.

Bush opposed the Kyoto Treaty limiting carbon dioxide emissions.  Out of 169 countries the United States and Australia are the only two countries that did not sign-—it’s interesting, that India and China signed the agreement but are not required to reduce carbon emissions, maybe that needs to change.

It would be nice to know what energy companies met with Cheney in 2001, and what deals were finalized during this energy task force
meeting—-clearly it was not a conference on how to curb fossil fuel emissions.

Environmentalists knew from the start, that this administration would do everything possible to “promote” fossil fuel use; even if they had to censor government scientists—-our “Born Again President” thinks that there is no need to worry about climate change, God will save us all, or humanity will be saved with a Noah’s Ark, unfortunately, we are sailing on the Titanic.

The Earth has processed a lot of life forms and (weather/atmospheric/sea/dirt and all that other stuff too)conditions.

I suppose it’s too much to accept the possibility that we are not GOD.  We are another life form, a special one to be sure but we are a failed form of life that is too destructive to survive.

It’s so sad to see all the advances by the human side of our population going down the drain because of the massive, self destructive pursuit of counterfeit wealth by the low lifes in government and corporations.

Bless this woman. The administration’s behavior in this matter—squelching legitimate scientific findings important to the health of the Earth—is malfeasance. It is grounds for impeachment. The behavior of the previous administration in this matter would certainly constitute at least misfeasance. (See http://www.counterpunch.com/cohen02022007.html)

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am mad as hell about our being poisoned by purposely negligent public policy. Of course we are not the ones that are going to suffer but those who will are going to number in the billions.  jon   Connecting the dots: From human behaviors to ecosystem collapse
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org

Dear Dr. Solomon,

You’re wasting your time with the dumb and deaf.

He’ll never listen to any good advice but only with sweet flattery.