Rupert Murdoch takes on global warming

Soon I think those that do not acknowledge global warming will be looked upon as less credible if not fit for the looney farm. Even if we are not making the earth warmer it should be common knowledge that the earth will be better off when we eventually emit less carbon into the atmosphere.

So far it's been all talk and no action. Good to see someone taking it seriously. This will be a drop in the bucket, however. What we need is a tax on fossil fuels and an intensive program that will replace our dirty coal-fired power plants with gasification - combined cycle plants with CO2 recovery and injection. This plus nuclear power will do a lot to turn things around. We still need to develop solar power and wind power but they do not solve the base-load electrical demands.

All this talk about ethanol solving our problems is a diversion from reality that we truly don't need.

Whether the earth is getting warmer is not the question. The question regards the source of the warming. If human activity is responsible - by how much? Is it 100% or 10%? What are the costs AND benefits of a warmer planet? Who should be making these decisions - the private sector or public bureaucrats?

I have no problem recognizing data that shows certain parts of the planet have warmed over the past century. What I do take issue with are the potential causes and cures outlined by many interest groups.

Ah, but global warming may actually be helping to prevent the next Ice Age, which given the cycles of cooling and warming throughout the last several million years, may actually be upon us.

The point is that it's difficult to extrapolate cycles that run in tens of thousands of years to our experiences of the last decade. I hear many people explaining any localized and temporary weather abnormality as being a consequence of global warming, which is absurd.

Nevertheless, the scientific explanations of causality can be compelling, and I think it prudent to make an investment in reducing greenhouse gas emissions today. Waiting until there is unambigious scientific proof may be too late to take action.

I believe that Peter and Mike need to go to some good scientific sources and see what they are saying. I attended a presentation by Ron Olewin, Prof. of Astronomy and Physics at St. Mary's College, Moraga, last night and his interpretation was that the cycles have been investigated and are not enough to explain what we are seeing. No matter what assumptions are used, predictions are that we are going to see significant increases in warming.

As Peter says, it is prudent that we do something now because, if we don't, we could reach a tipping point where things accelerate beyond control. We may have as liitle as a 20 year period in which to stabilize things. Admittedly this is the least optimistic prediction.

If the Greenland Ice Cap melts away we are going to see a 6 meter rise in sea levels and ocean currents may be affected. We are already seeing climatic effects on animals and farming.

Um, I've read some of the scientific sources, Dad. Some are ambiguous, a few point an other directions entirely, and some seem to start with an assumption of global warming. Some seem to be well done and have defensible conclusions supporting global warming.

Under normal circumstances, a proper approach to such scientific results is skepticism. And while the causality behind the theories seems intuitive, I have learned that intuition sometimes plays tricks on us. But in this case the stakes are too high to not err on the side of caution.

A summary of comments about the February IPCC report -http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/006016.htmlWarning from James Hansen that mankind must act decisively in the coming decade.http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/hansenRecent surveys (like IPCC reports) conclude that most (~80% iirc) of the current warming trend is caused by man.