If you release stronger forms of chorine into the air, which was done by ref mechanics repeatedly for years, you can burn a hole in the ozone and freon is lethal enough to effect the atmospheric cycle, which in turn contaminates the water cycle.

Never mind all of that. Most posts here against GW are not even aware of the strongest argument against it. It goes as follows:

The earth wobbles in its orbit. Polaris is the North Star right now but thousands of years ago it was Vega. During that time the northern hemisphere would be pointed more directly at the sun at the winter solstice and would be closer during those summer months (Dec thru March) than it presently is in our summer months ( June July and August.). There is extreme evidence from the subsoils that the Ohio River Valley was a rainforest and that its summers were much hotter than the present rainforests on earth since most of the planet's land mass is in the northern hemisphere. Average temperatures likely were in the upper 90s back then.

As it wobbled to the other extreme the planet wound up with ice ages. Further, studies of the sun's activities suggest that the number of solar flares and sun spots were large in the cases of the effects of el ninos and ninas where the number of X-rays penetrating the ocean were much larger than normal.

Further, the sun has an 11 year solar cycle, matching the length of a Jovian year. Every 11 years Jupiter is in opposition during January, teaming up with the sun to tug us a little closer during January, coinciding with the warmer Januaries we have had recently, only to find February and March acting more winter-like (which we are all experiencing right now). Just look in the morning sky and you will see that Jupe finished being in opposition a while ago.

So there seem to be a number of astronomical influences over our climates. I still didn"t mention that recently it was found that when we pass through density waves in our galactic path, we wind up with ice ages and they match data with our journeys through those extra star dust times.

However, science is a process in which we first experiment with a prototype in a controlled risk environment, an environment where we can afford the failure of our hypothesis being tested. If we cannot afford failure, then we must take a step back wait until our technological advancement allows us to.

Every scientist must distinguish his or herself from pseudoscience. Science is not seeking out truths that cannot be disproven. Pseudoscience does that. Science seeks falsification and realizes beliefs that are less false. Seeking out truth is to seek out dead ends that cannot be questioned. Therefore, what happens if those against GW are wrong and GW is ignored? Can we afford those consequences? What happens if GW advocates are wrong and the amount of CO2 is reduced? What is that fallout? The latter looks more affordable if they are wrong. The former will only listen when a runaway effect is realized…which is too late.

This is supposed to a scientific site, not a religious or political one, so why are there no stories that contradict the alarmists? Despite what proponents claim, there are tons of articles and peer-reviewed papers by prominent scientists in fields directly related to the climate that disagree with part or all of the supposed (but non-existent) "concensus". Global warming, and especially the hypothesis of human activity causing it, are in no way proven, and there is much evidence against it as well.

It would be refreshing to at least see some balance here, so we can make up our own minds about a subject that has so many draconian political and economic ramifications.

Regarding global warming, as I understand it, in that great tradition of science, scientists generally agree that SOMTHING'S going on, but the devil's in the details (ie, what the hell's causing it & the effect IF ANY humankind is contributing to thw situation) – cue mis-information, pseudo science & general bull-headedness

Common sense dictates it's not really clever to keep polluting the environment, but like with any question of this type, surely scientists working to find an answer (like life on Mars) is part of what makes things great?

I agree with everyone that we should not pollute our dear old Planet Earth, that's a no-brainer. But global warming? I don't believe a word of it. I too, remember the "global cooling" scaremongering of the 1970's.

If you still insist on getting the Carbon Hero, get the really sexy, razor-thin one. They are SOOOO HOT!

Threats of coming ice age scared me as a third grader in the 70's. Do these sound familiar?

"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically…"

"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. "

"But they are almost unanimous in the view…"

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects."

"The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Any of it sound familiar? It should, I've heard most of it in the hype surrounding global warming. Sad fact is, these quotes all came from Newsweeks 1975 article on global cooling by Peter Gwynne. We were given ten years before food production dropped and life on earth began to starve if immediate action wasn't taken.

Regarding chlorine – I can change the thermodynamic properties of any system by changing any of the components. All easy on the scale of a heat pump. Try it on a planetary scale. I'm familiar with the conveyor – it's driven by salinity differences and it keeps northern Europe from freezing. Once it wasn't there. Did mans activity create it? In the future it may be gone. You're saying that man will be solely responsible for it's destruction?

PUt a glass of water on the stove and turn the burner on the lowest setting. Add some chlorine. add some salt, take away the chlorine and salt, do whatever you want but, I'm betting the it's the burner that affects the temperature of that was more than anything else you could do short of a violent chemical reaction. Doesn't it just make sense that the Sun is the biggest effector of climate change on the Earth??

This article was about space based technology. The authors didn't promote any one idea other than the reality of a product – regardless of its value or usefulness.

Hmmm… Where in my post did I say that I strongly supported a GW position?

I stated only that it seems like you have a strong anti-GW position, and feel the need to rant about it. And then in reply, you rant about it again!

But let's respond to some of your claims for fun:

1) Coastal sea level rise isn't even predicted to be happening yet, you douche! So the fact that it isn't happening to a large degree at the moment proves nothing either way.

2) I agree to a certain extent with this claim, but would say there is evidence that is strongly indicative of human-based causes of a sharp increase in av. global temps.

3) This is the point that makes it painfully clear that you are have no idea what you're talking about. Comparing weather prediction to climate modeling? Seriously, learn the difference between weather and climate.

4) Of course there are some scientists who doubt the models. They may yet prove to be correct – that's why science works so well. But the overwhelming consensus and the best data analysis and modeling currently available suggest that they are wrong.

5) I agree.

6) I agree. Follow the money. But who's making the big bucks? Not the scientist that are working on these models, that's for damn sure. Maybe special interests in Washington, who instead of committing to something meaningful, dream up new ways to make dollars out of the situation, like carbon trading etc.

7) I never said that it's not hypocritical to make GW claims and own and do the things you've listed. Nor do I advocate ceasing all progress and innovation because of GW. It's not practical or sensible. That doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist though, or that we can try to limit further damage through innovations in various technologies.

I mean seriously, do you understand the proposed mechanisms for GW? Have you read and analysed the scientific papers? Do you understand the various aspects and causes of climate change that they model? I strongly suspect that the sum total of the information you base your opinions on comes from the O'Rielly Factor, or some equally informative Fox network trash.

And why wouldn't we want to reduce our emissions? The way we live at the moment – pumping tons of chemicals into the air and environment at large – is akin to pissing in the bathtub before jumping in.

So at the end a personal note.
Living in the sub actic we've have had the warmest winter and warmest decade since temperature measurements started – no doubt we're heading for catastropic changes in this area. Winter is officially over already by the end of february!

But im sure that fact wont rock the boat for those who are in a state of denial even when the facts yell them straight in the face.

If increased carbon dioxide causes an increase in the Earths temperature, why does the data show that the carbon dioxide increases lag the temperature increases by as much as 800 years?

Has causality been repealed?

Second, Will the computer also tell people to reduce their carbon footprint in the slow, right lanes of the highway and leave the fast, left lanes to those of us who know it's all bunko?

Third, will the computer be WiFi so it can wire money directly from Al Gores account to purchase all of my carbon credits, the credits of all of the Universe Today readers and the credits of the thousands of others that are required to offset the carbon footprint of "The Great Prophet"?

If you GW advocates are really serious about reducing your carbon footprint, start planting trees and do it every year. I've got 1.7 million in and am still going strong. THAT is the kind of positive action that will lessen a so-called "carbon footprint".

However if you erase the previous information from the device, reset it or whatever, it could probably not tell the difference unless you do some typical drive maneuvers.

And dropping a ten paragraph rant here how the editors of this site don't conform to your conspiracy theories really shows how classy and rational you are* …

*not

I am interested if they've figured out how to distinguish between walking and being stuck in traffic. Perhaps there is AI software that analyses the entire trip. But it might be difficult to parse a public bus trip with transfers.

I see I hit a nerve there! It's amazing what happens when you doubt the global warming zealots. I'm told that I'm 'vomiting', et al.

Let's review, shall we? Just a couple of the more important points of this so-called 'global warming':

1) No sunken coastal cities yet, though every summer I hear the warnings that we're all going to be under water.

2) Still no concrete evidence that global warming is caused by man, or even if global warming is a short term trend.

3) Weather-predicting is still as reliable as it always was – usually wrong within 24-48 hours, nevermind for the next 100 years.

4) Many of the 'leading scientists' in the field doubt the accuracy of global warming theories.

5) The loudest voices demanding we do something to prevent global warming (read Environmentalist Wackos, political leaders, and Hollywood celebrities) do the most to cause that which they say all the rest of us should cease immediately. They fly in private jets, heat multiple 10,000 square foot homes, drive enormous pleasure yachts, enjoy a day at the auto-races, drive and own limousines and SUV's, play golf on forest-stripped land, consume titanic amounts of goods, etc., while demanding we all limit what little we have already. Their lavish lifestyles are too intricate to describe here.

6) Follow the money – who's really making money off this and how? Carbon credits? C'mon! What a Ponzi-scheme!

7) You really want to help? No one should own a TV, boat, more than one car per household; we should have fuel and heating rationed, no driving for pleasure of any kind as it wastes fuel unneccessarily, no large homes allowed or an additional family has to live there, and certainly NO WASTEFUL ROCKET LAUNCHES! No need for that, now, is there? Why, how can we look at Europa when the Earth is almost dead? Also, tear down the observatories, they cost a fortune to maintain and leave a huge carbon footprint while doing nothing to help the earth.

UT is an awesome site; it's why I come here as much as I do. But I'll be damned if I'm going to be told directly or indirectly to change my lifestyle and foot hefty financial increases in my style of living because some bunch of politicos and junk UN committees decide that I, not they, need to stop the end of the world. An end which many of them can not prove is truly coming. Remember, 30 years ago we were all going to freeze to death in the Great Ice Age from Global Cooling.

I came here to read about the wonders of the universe and, instead, I have to look at this garbage. Have a heart, UT, real science isn't for everybody.