Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Psychology. Sociology.

When you think about it, delving a good bit into these areas may help us arrive at more effective ways to communicate the science... perhaps even to those whose minds we are convinced are permanently closed.

The science of greenhouse gasses must be improved for me to 'believe' anything regarding global climate change being attributed to these gasses.

For example, CO2, in some sources, is said to be 26% responsible for greenhouse warming. Some sources say as little as 5%, with water vapour >90% responsible.

How could policy be formed when the numbers are still in dispute?

Another head-scratcher would be geologic history telling us that Earth as entered ice ages with CO2 above 1,000ppm.

Another is CO2 concentration having never been the driver of climate, but simply a by-product.

One could even argue that high CO2 levels bring about an ice age. While I don't argue this point, nor believe it, if one was to look at the Vostok ice core record one would notice that when CO2 levels reached 100,000 year highs, temperatures dropped with CO2 continuing to rise for several hundred years because of the lag time, before following temperatures downward.

Land-use should be the number 1 issue concerning climate change.

It is very possible that the large swaths of forest that have been cleared for development could be the very reason for an overall .5şC temperature increase.

Grassland, farmland, cities and towns absorb much more insolation than does a forest.

even to those whose minds we are convinced are permanently closed.


That's not the best way to achieve an open discussion....

Save the coastal wetlands here and across America ..those in hurricane areas prone to Storm Surge deserve it.

Amy,

I would have to agree there.

Also, isn't it rather closed minded to assume that the total temperature increase since the 1800's are purely anthropogenic, with no other causation??

Again, this is a common tactic used by the GW community, dumbing down any and all that oppose their view, than calling them a skeptic or denialist.

Bring the IMAGES to the masses daily..to see major changes over time . Like with these. Most dont know the wealth of imagery available now.

MODIS near real-time Global Subsets

Link

re: "not the best way to achieve an open discussion"

The point, as far as I am concerned, is to find a way to reach through the thick skulls of the perma-blinded. If by studying their pathology I can better achieve this, then that is one thing those of us who wish to do so might want to explore.

While offending someone is not my intention, I kind of don't care if someone is offended or not by my occasional foray into bluntness.

MODIS 250m zoom New Orleans , Gulf Coastal,Miss,ALa,Fla Visible color. yesterday. from MODIS subsets. This Basin to change everyone says ..in time.

Link

ooh!!

AtsaFunny shoots...and...he scores!!!!

;)

Climate Change Nerds Scoreboard:

AtsaFunnyToo: 1
all others: 0

there is some truth in all views,to want to change alls view to one view would be a big diaster, especially if that one view was not all correct....This is where both sides of the GW issue are lacking in sense,so in reality they are the same?

Amy - I admit to being insane in giving up a point scored with a Southern California girl but, truth be told, I am not worthy. My post was negative and unrelated to the thread at hand and therefore unworthy of an AmyPoint. I'm proposing that the Geek Judge (I can't remember your exact title, sorry) change her criteria for awarding points to those posts that elevate the debate rather than the best shot landed.

Chances are ...when you die ,you will be put in a box...for some that's not much of a change...they have lived in a box all their lives...never even being able to consider someone else's view might be right...or better...just my 2 cents worth

Atsa...the judges ( being myself and the Spastic Good Humor bar) have discussed the situation....and we agree..

So, the playing field is even....no score on the board....


;)

Ricky those are all important issues. I think the effects of climate change on society are being way over blown. I've noticed one tactic lately in the media. It goes like this any insect or animal or even some condition that thrives in warmer temperatures it brought to light. Especially if its a nusance, things like a moskito, or maybe a species of bird or some weed, you name it. Then they say, "new sudies shows that global warming will cause an increase in bla, bla, bla, be scared very scared. I don't know how much if any CO2 is responsible for a warming climate (last 30 years or so) and neither does anyone else in my opinion. Just because a change creates a need to adapt to it to doesn't make it bad.

There is a false image of society that is created is if we are so week and fragile that the slightest change is going to set off an endless chain of chain reactions and ahahah omg omgomgom everythings all messed up ahhhhh. Holley crap pardon my french lets use some common sense. Things change things have always changed, take it in stride. There is no such thing as climate control other than your home or car. Imagine the implications of climate change back to the little ice age. History shows the human race thrived in warmer climate periods as well as life in general. I think the predicted sea level rise has been widely exagerated, but ok big deal lets stop concetrating population centers near coastlines. Most of thing we need to do to adapt to climate change are common sense things. I think as residents of earth we are obligated to practice good houskeeping, and government regulation is a nescesary evil to some degree.

If WU wants to start some sort of ECO blog I guess thats cool, even though all that stuff just appears to me to be trendy money making venture for people rather than people who truly concerned about the human wellfare. One thing I must whole heartedly take issure with Ricky about is this attempt here once again to shut down the debate, by "moving on" maybe this tactic is not obvous to most but it is to me. So if this turns into some sort of ecoblog, what can I do to save the planet It probably wont interest me since I'm here at WU to monitor and try and predict the wild and mysterious atmosphere, thats the stuff I love.
On the other hand one thing I would be interested in seeing would be links or perhaps original graphics depicting current sea ice and snowcover anomalies, as well as SST anomlies. and maybe monthly state of the climate bulletins that discous recent anomalies and temperatere and precipition as well as Global Averaged land and sea temps. Kind of like the NCDC and NOAA does on some of there web sites.

Arguing for and against the science of the AGW theory is I think a key in pushing our understanding of the atmosphere and climate forward, and should not be brushed aside, I feel strongly about that. The idea of creating a climate page devoted to those who agree and support the idea of AGW doesn not interest me in the least. Sorry just being honest.

Back to the subject at hand, I think ethics must be a high priority in addressing the issues/non-issues of climate change. Doing the "right thing" isn't always popular, and probably won't get you elected any time soon. But don't we all owe it, if to no one else than to our families, to do what is ethically right for this planet? I don't know about climate change. I have not studied it enough to have an opinion. I only know that I hear people screaming on both sides of the issue, with a lot of name calling, and too many figures and statistics for me to keep track off. I mean, I can barely keep track of my passwords for my computer at work!

But, unless mankind is just inherrently evil, and while I may think a lot of people are idiots, I don't necessarily think them to be malevolent, then isn't it our duty to take care of our home? And, don't we all want to do that?

I think as residents of earth we are obligated to practice good houskeeping,

Exactly what I was trying to say...thank you...

I would like to add that it is annoying when people on here who don't agree resort to persnal attacks and ego posturing. (Example ahh I'm smarter than you so let me use big words to subtlely insult you.) I think the desent would be more productive if folks didn't degrade the conversation to that.

Atsa, I'm sorry but that doesn't score points with me either. However, my point was clearly proven...

As for evidence...

Do you read papers/news on the internet? Watch cable TV? Listen to what celebs the like of Sheryl Crow have to say about global warming?

It is quite fanatic.

Limiting use of toilet paper??
Lil Bush on global warming now on comedy central?
"The debate is now over..." people.
New Jersey passing anti-global warming laws (90% reduction of CO2 by 2050) without any kind of programs or guildlines to enforce it?

Mayor Bloomberg, who signed NYC onto just about every climate pact he could to promote a good image and who is also at a press conference today arguing against a measure that would allow, and i quote "Commuters from Connecticut" to be able to stay home to do the jobs that they currently do in the city.

Hmmm...wouldn't one think that someone, who in the public eye is a champion in the fight against climate change, would want thousands of commuters spewing all the nasty CO2 into the air as they make their way down to the city? Oh!! Yeeaaa.. their spending money on tolls, food ect. as they toil in the city...especially if Bloomberg gets his London style enterance fee for cars($8) and trucks($21) bill passed in an effort to 'reduce congestion' and 'stop global warming'

Someone is talking out both sides of their mouth and making money doing it...

This may not be the kind of examples you may want to see (us educated folks read papers and studies and check the data), but to the common folk this is what's shoved down their throats all day.


If there should be a page devoted to climate change on WU there should be other good theories presented without CO2 dominating everything.

GHG and AGW should get the most coverage, it is the most popular theory and provable. No one can deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increases in CO2 do increase temperatures, but by how much?? It is a nominal portion of the total warming since 1850, or a significant portion?

But there are other theories out there. There's the GCR theory, and solar variation, which are both related in very complicated ways which very little is understood (with the enormous popularity and money making power of global warming it is easy to see why very little money gets funded here)


The role of clouds in the climate still aren't completly understood.

Changes in bathymetry changing ocean currents and the effects caused.

Underwater volcanism.

Milankovitch cycles

All this should be included, with articles, links to free studies an relevant websites that offer more in depth data and discussion ect.

Lack of mention to these theories is a dis-service to science and the good scientists that did all their wonderful research. As well as the readers of the site as they will not be given a full picture of the climate puzzle.

What is the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect given it constitutes less than 0.04% of the atmosphere? How do we know this?

Ricky, IMO, some of the strongest proponents of MMGW say things that damage their case. For example, Mr. Gore citing hurricane season 2004 & 2005 as proof or at least strong evidence of GW. Or the unfortunate comments of "treason" issued by Robert Kennedy Jr.; The frequent posturing by some that one is an idiot if these concepts are not accepted at face-value immediately.

I myself remain open to study and learning, and think there's a lot of things that can and should be done irrespective of you stance on MMGW. I'm not wholly resistant to the idea, but not motivated by political rhetoric either. RicDerr said something interesting the other day, pointing out that many sound environmental policies and ideas were in place BEFORE they 'got their wagon hitched' to GW, inferring, I think, that some of these ideas' implementation may suffer because of being tied into GW.

I'd like to see more studies and numbers that are accompanied by links to the bibliography. As another blogger here noted, the same data is often interpreted differently. Surely, if this is a real, verifiable phenomenon that has credible studies and evidence spanning further back than just the last 50 years, in can be produced in a manner that is nearly irrefutable.

I enjoy reading your blog. Sorry for the novel; too much coffee

"Posted By: hurricanecrab at 8:01 AM CDT on July 11, 2007.

Ricky, IMO, some of the strongest proponents of MMGW say things that damage their case."

He's absolutely right. There is lots of proof of the media's bias.

Here's a quote from the January 30 "Lou Dobbs Tonight":

“I'll tell you something we did on this show, oh about seven, eight months ago because I finally got tired of the debate. I said, ‘All right, on this broadcast at least for the purposes of this audience and this broadcast we're going to assume that mankind has a significant role in global warming.”

The MRC's Business & Media Institute has a whole archive full of stories exposing the media's bias on the environment.

Climate of Bias

The science may be sound, there are lots of things we can do, but a lot of people are put off by the "scare tactics" of the non-scientists (media and celebs).

Recently, about the Live Earth concert:

A poll was taken, and about 75% of the people asked said they didn't watch any of it.

Another scientist said that in order to "carbon offset" the concert, we'd have to plant 100,000 trees.

Al Gore stated his "7 step pledge", and personally violates 2 or three.

I liked Chris Rock's statement, though: Hopefully, Live Earth will help save the environment like Live Aid helped stop world hunger...

"RicDerr said something interesting the other day, pointing out that many sound environmental policies and ideas were in place BEFORE they 'got their wagon hitched' to GW, inferring, I think, that some of these ideas' implementation may suffer because of being tied into GW."

And here's the problem. As long as the MMGW hype continues, man will make stupider choices, all in the name of the environment. And if anyone questions the "rules", they tell you that you're at fault, not their rules.

Hcubed,

Why do you throw in "left wing bias"?

I am green as grass, and somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.

"Posted By: PuntaGordaPete at 10:17 AM CDT on July 11, 2007.

Hcubed,

Why do you throw in "left wing bias"?"

Fine. I've gone back and removed the term "left wing". Doesn't change the statements they've made.

"Posted by: RickyRood, 5:45 PM EDT on July 10, 2007

An Easy Read // A Question for my Readers

What are the weaknesses in "the science" of greenhouse gas warming? I mean the basic science of warming by greenhouse gases?"

One of the first weaknesses I see is the measurement of temperature itself.

The first useable, portable thermometers (merc) were invented in 1714.

"When the thermometer was first invented there was no clear understanding of fixed temperature points. To further confuse the situation the skills required to make thermometers were not available: it was difficult to make a thermometer with a bore of consistent diameter along its length, meaning that no two thermometers were alike."

Link

I propose that as thermometers advanced, so did the ability to make accurate measurements. Today's thermometers can have an accuracy of .0001 or better.

All of today's weather thermometers have the same standard, something that wasn't common 100 years ago. Also, not all of the world uses the same scale (C vs.F), so transposition error creeps in.

I think that SOME of the increased average temps can be attributed to better technology.

Comments?

RickyRood:
I have read estimates that CO2 is responsible for anywhere between 2% to 26% of the total Greenhouse Effect. I was wondering why the very wide range in estimates of the contribution to the total GHE?

We know that the atmospheric levels have risen some 35-40% since pre-industrial times so there is little disbute that CO2 is rising fairly rapidly so it makes sense to consider what to do about it. In order to control and then reduce CO2 we have to take a serious look at two options in my opinion:
1. Nuclear
2. Hydrogen

The Earth is a complex system, and the variability and response are always a source of uncertainty.

Definitely some issues with temperture record, but there has been a massive effort to reconcile these differences. There is always this sort of uncertainty

The feedbacks are often cited as most uncertain

Is there a pattern here?

Here is a good topic to tackle in future blogs....

Has anyone on here ever considered the discrepencies between the northern and southern hemisphere climate variations. The vast oceans in the southern hemisphere do not show the same warming as say the north Atlantic and even some cooling is idicated. Surface temperatures on antartica have actually trended down in the last 20 years. Paleoclimatologist have also found that warmer and colder periods do match up to the warmer and colder periods in the Northern Hemisphere, according to ocean sediment analysis. They sugest interhemispheric deep ocean circulation patterns may causing the north atlantic to warm while causing the southern hemisphere oceans to cool. A lot of the recent increase in surface temperatures is being caused by the warm phase of the AMO we moved into in the mid 90's.

Now wouldn't warming comming from primarily CO2 forcing have a more uniform effect on Global Climate. Things like this are not nit-picking or trying to reach 0% uncertainty. They are actually pretty fundamental flaws in the AGW proposition.

The followiing no way is an attempt to prove AGW wrong but since others on the believing side point out every heat record or drought as evidence I have to counter. I notice Dr. Masters blog seems to relate every issue of current bad weather events to Global warming. So just to keep things balanced.....

After south america experiened a record cold may, (southern hemisphere fall) another antartic outbreak hit the area this month bringing snow to Argentina for the first time in 89 years....Link to story

There is an measure of southern Hemisphere circulation patterns called the AAO, bassically the same thing as AO (artic oscillation). Were higher pressure forms near the pole, forcing polar air into normally warmer extratropical regions indicating a negative or cold phase of the oscillation.

This is NOAA's graph of the index over the last 3 months.


The southern Hemisphere 500hpa hieght anomalies show the amplified trough and ridges really spreading that polar air equatorward.

Ricky, the questions you ask need answers, and the range of opinion is extreme. I have been planning two oceanfront projects, one a resort and the other a quarry, and have had to ask the question, should we plan for a sea level rise. Turning to the science and the vast array of opinion, computer models, theories, etc. only told us that we need not worry about sea level rise to the extreme, that we should forget the projects altogether, as they could be underwater this century.

One problem with the “science” of this is it seems to first be influenced by politics and industry. But the true, uninhibited scientists working on this, really are not considering all the negative feedback loops in their models, and that is because they may not yet know them all. Twenty years from now they may have greater understanding, and iron-clad models that rivals the excellent short-term weather forecasting science that we enjoy today, because by then they may have discovered, observed and measured these phenomena. (phenomena that I hope does not occur)

The weakness, I believe, in the science is that we are too busy arguing about what the correct science is, and ignoring the fact that we have already jumped out of the airplane and maybe need to think about the theories of parachutes. The two things we must do, as you say is get carbon neutral, and figure out how to re-deposit the carbon that we have taken from the earth and put into the atmosphere. That can be a very long process, and the race is against an opponent, whose strength we may not learn about for sometime.

As for your question of acceptance of warming, it is a concern, if say the President of the USA does not accept that it is happening, but we should not be concerned about bringing everyone into this, because you won’t. Better to focus on the two things we must do. In my projects we have a plan to be carbon neutral within five years, and that is the best I could do still maintaining profitability.

But back to my main problem, whether to plan for a higher sea level this century. Now I live on the water in South Florida, in an area developed in the mid-1950s (as much of this area was) and we have certainly observed some recent thresholds of sea level rise. Hard to measure, as everyone says, but still there. Like my lower dock that is now underwater in a high tide. Was not that way when it was built 50 years ago. Not a huge problem now, but if the level does that same increase again, the backyard will flood. Then there are places in a low lying area called Rio Vista that have seawater puddles on the streets, making a mess of cars that drive through them.

So in planning a project do I believe the straight-line guys? Or do I just care about a fifty-year project life and make everything for a foot of rise, to be safe? But if all this is due to the meltdown of the ice-on-land-up-north-or-south I have a really hard time believing in straight lines of melt. Not when we see things like the loss of lower latitude glaciers like this. Link

I finally read a paper that probably is realistic about the way ice melts in an increasing temperature environment. It was published in May of 2007 by James Hansen, et al found here. Link It was not the answer I was hoping for, but left the question of when and how fast could a catastrophic meltdown occur.

So part of my morning ritual after coming to the great WU site is then checking Lake Okeechobee levels, and last going here to see what is happening up on the big ice cube in Greenland. Link

A lot of people have been saying that the melt and temps up there have gotten worse in the last couple of years. But most of the studies were done half a decade ago. The question should be, are we at the edge of Hansen’s flip? Yes, I know that the melting of sea ice does not raise sea levels, and I know that the glacier melt could be getting replaced by winter snows, but there was a point where that stopped happening in the lower latitude glaciers. I did a composite of last four years on July 10.

Cannot get this image to post yet, but it is over in the photo section under DougL


I bring this to your attention as a place to watch for the rest of this summer. Just something to do while we are all busy getting carbon neutral.

For some reason, last comment didn't post...

"Posted By: RickyRood at 1:01 PM CDT on July 12, 2007.

hcubed: Definitely some issues with temperture record, but there has been a massive effort to reconcile these differences. There is always this sort of uncertainty. We still face this today. Temperature sensors change with time, or low bid contracts. Plus the satellites are very difficult to calibrate. There is a huge body of work on the subject, and because of the precision and the "archeology" that is required, I find it especially interesting to read about."

The reasons I ask, is because polls etc. usually have a "margin of error". Does the temp measurement have the same?

Again, as technology increases, averages will change. As the number of reporting stations increase, averages will change. I read a report (can't remember where, though) of a check on the reporting stations. It seems that some of them aren't too careful about where they put their gear, and this might cause averages to change.

Remember, we're only talking about a .5 degree raise in the past 100 years (well within a "margin of error").

PS; Found that study:

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/climate/dev/publications/t10.pdf

Just one section of the study:

"Station location changes and subsequent land use changes were shown to have measurable effects on temperature trends at U.S. Historical Climate Network (HCN) sites.

Temperature trends from the HCN appear to be significantly biased by non-climatic factors such as site exposure, regional land use, land cover changes, and station moves. These results show that HCN sites do not provide an unbiased record and other data besides temperature needs to be assessed for climate change in order to accurately gauge the occurrences of climate change in Indiana and throughout the world."

The same study was done in Colo, same conclusion. Will look for link to that.

An article in our local paper added a new wrinkle, that of subsidence along the Gulf of Mexico (sinking land).

Portions of So MS have sunk about a foot in the last 40 years (about a third of an inch a year). Areas of LA have dropped more. This goes along with the wetland loss that was discussed earlier.

.

"Posted By: DougL at 10:54 PM CDT on July 14, 2007.

But back to my main problem, whether to plan for a higher sea level this century. Now I live on the water in South Florida, in an area developed in the mid-1950s (as much of this area was) and we have certainly observed some recent thresholds of sea level rise. Hard to measure, as everyone says, but still there. Like my lower dock that is now underwater in a high tide. Was not that way when it was built 50 years ago. Not a huge problem now, but if the level does that same increase again, the backyard will flood. Then there are places in a low lying area called Rio Vista that have seawater puddles on the streets, making a mess of cars that drive through them."

The problem may not be solely sea-level rise, but that of subsidence (sinking land). This may also have to be addressed. The flood maps put out by NOAA may not be using accurate benchmarks.

I know that we have jumped on India for their CO2 emissions, so check out this story:

"India makes climate change move
By Sanjoy Majumder
BBC News, Delhi

India has taken the first steps towards developing a national plan on tackling the effects of climate change.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh chaired a meeting of top government officials and environmental experts which agreed to draft a national policy by October.

But the body has not set any targets to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.

India and China are among the world's largest polluters and are coming under international pressure to agree to mandatory emission cuts.

Other countries want them to make the cuts ahead of a key meeting in December.

A recent report by environmental experts said India would be among the countries worst affected by climate change.

In his opening remarks at the meeting of India's National Council for Climate Change, Mr Singh acknowledged the scale of the problem.

The growing needs of the Indian economy put pressure on national resources, he said.

The council will work on a strategy to offset the impact of melting Himalayan glaciers which feed many of the country's rivers and are a major source of water and power.

A tree planting programme will also be launched to replenish 15m acres of degraded forests.

And the council will come up with a road map for energy-efficient approaches to economic development.

But no mention was made of cutting carbon emissions.

India has long resisted signing up to any mandatory cuts, saying the impact on its growing economy will be too severe.

Under the existing Kyoto agreement, India is exempted from emission cuts.

But it is under pressure to do so ahead of a UN meeting in December aimed at replacing the Kyoto Protocol, which lapses in 2012."

Is this the kind of start we wanted to see?

I applaude you for moving beyond the arguement & addressing the solution on a page or something around here. In addressing efficency, this should be presented with tact & alotta product or other information. Seems many have been fooled into being nonefficent to prove they are against the idea the climate could be changing because something we are doing~ many seem just tricked that efficent products just aren't as good, a lower standard of living. It's as if every benifit to them & their wallet has been removed from the equation of decision.

I see this alot with the older generations, as I'm always trying to get people to be more efficent in ways that will save them. A regular lightbulb has worked for them, many don't believe they could have harmed the enviroment at all. Yes they could save money with these new lightbulbs, so they try them out & buy 1. They know nothing about these lightbulbs or the variety available. They purchase a small cheap one that is the equivalent of a 10W regular & white instead of the natural color light they could & would have bought so they are unhappy with these new lightbulbs cause they are weak & the wrong color, then tell all their friends.

This is one example. Instead of a simple list of things you could do, include links so people can read & learn just what they need & where to go to make the changes. It amazes me the # that have no idea solar panels can be tied into the grid, no batteries required. Or you can call a company to slap them up there & pay them a monthly bill instead of the power company at the rate you pay now. Who made it more trendy to grow grass & flowers than fruit trees & some easy veggies? Links to where to accomplish these things easily as well as the top crop of cars, best panels, lightbulbs, gagets & etc would be great. Link companies, online shopping, throw the greenest~ money & CO2 savers a bone.

"Posted By: Skyepony at 10:37 PM GMT on July 17, 2007.

This is one example. Instead of a simple list of things you could do, include links so people can read & learn just what they need & where to go to make the changes. It amazes me the # that have no idea solar panels can be tied into the grid, no batteries required. Or you can call a company to slap them up there & pay them a monthly bill instead of the power company at the rate you pay now. Who made it more trendy to grow grass & flowers than fruit trees & some easy veggies? Links to where to accomplish these things easily as well as the top crop of cars, best panels, lightbulbs, gagets & etc would be great. Link companies, online shopping, throw the greenest~ money & CO2 savers a bone."

Sounds like a repeat of the 70's - the "Whole Earth Catalog" and "Mother Earth News" mag were real popular, and are still around.

hcubed~ Guess that's where the tact comes in. I doubt these people read those magazines then & I know wouldn't touch anything named that now. Something that promotes it as being best for self. It needs advertised as how you can save me (money), not earth or someone elses grandkids.

Real Goods (now owned by Gaim - a high-end store of "natural" products) is one place to look for products. Real Goods itself has been around for quite awhile and the staff are incredibly well-informed about the various products and methods for using alternative energy at home and they sell many products designed to save both water and energy. They also offer classes, if you can get to them. I haven't spent much time on the website but their catalogs are chock-full of information on how to "green" your life and, of course, save money.
Should of put this in, too (or, instead) Solar Living Institute - what Real Goods once was a part of, or something.

Let me rephrase (I'm tired...):
The Solar Living Institute link is the one to follow for fantastic information and products (including books and those classes I mentioned) and Gaiam/Real Goods is a place to shop for household and personal goods. There, that makes sense, I think ;-)

What are the weaknesses in "the science" of greenhouse gas warming? I mean the basic science of warming by greenhouse gases?

and

If you do not accept the attribution of warming in the past century to mankind and fossil fuel burning, then does that mean that we should do nothing about the warming?

We pretty much know the cause of it. However, the effects are limitless.I can go on and on if you would like?

There are those who say we need to warm it more so we can thaw out the arctic ice so we can drill for more oil! That is what we are dealing with hear!