My first reply, please bear with me, and, be kind.
I'm just a mid-30's kid from Canada, sitting in what is usually a pretty neutral position in the world, eh?!


But, I have set aside my maple syrup and back bacon, because I am angry.


As an educated person, who does understand the scientific method, I applaud what this website (which I have only just discovered today) reports to stand for.

Unaltered facts and science, without political or moral interpretation.

But, after 4 hours of steady reading (no joke, I have such a headache now, and just took two Advil for it)... I can find no clear message, nor summary of facts, for the person who is educated enough to seek facts, but has no PhD, nor the time to read 400 scientific journals.

You guys seem to like blogs, and endless debate.
I'm an IT guy, the source of the blog, and I have no use for them. They're like a lot of people in a room, all shouting at once.
Debate and discussion, requires moderation, if it's ever going to produce anything worthwhile.

But, anyhow, see? I'm off topic already.

I am angry.

You people, pure scientists, have the gift of knowledge and intellect, yet you seem to prefer to sit in your ivory towers and debate. (I'm trying to draw an obvious comparison, bear with me)

I, on the outside, a person not without influence in the world, wish to do the right thing, in most areas of my life, and could possibly make a difference.
But, I, no longer have a CLUE what that "right thing" is, when it comes to this climate change global warming heap of dung.


Since my youth, I have always enjoyed the PBS channel documentaries. Later, my Discover magazine, TLC (before it sold out to home makeover shows), the Discovery channels, History Channel, you name it.
Always seeking more wisdom, that I could fit into my real-world schedule. (see my comment earlier about reading scientific journals)

I watched Al Gore's movie, and truly thought here is a compelling summary, of some not half bad ideas.
The USA is a leader in pollution, so if this leads to reductions in that area, more efficient cars, cheaper and cleaner power, etc, I'm all for it.
The greenhouse gasses stuff, all came across as just a bit fluffy and glossy, for me to swallow it, just "as is presented" with no references.
Then there's the fact that this guy wants to be president again... so much for his claims on motivation... we know he's going to need SOMETHING to cling to, if he's going to beat out Hillary. :-)

Then, add to that, I get friends and colleagues, all saying; "Wow, have you seen Al Gore's movie? The TRUTH is finally out there! We can save the planet!"

And, I become even more skeptical.
Why?
Because hype is never right.

-sigh-

Now, I know, that given the battle Al Gord has taken on in the USA, he has to go a bit overboard in one direction, to get his point through a lot of thick skulls.
But, to regular guys like me who have a clue, I have to shake my head a bit and look away.

So what, so I'm not his target audience, I can accept that, and move on.

Problem is, that the popular media, now regard him as the new god, and that academy award didn't help the matter any.

They have everyone whipped into such a frenzy, that they're ready to shut down the economy, and do everything else anyone can name -- whether there is any proof it will do anything for us -- or not.

"Inaction, is the only wrong choice."
How many more times will I have to hear that?


Then, last week, I got to see "The GGW Swindle".
I will NOT claim to be a fan for fear of reprisal, but, I did sit for an hour and 15 minutes straight. I reflected upon some things that hit home, some that sounded fishy, and others that addressed my concern over knee-jerk reactions to problems.

Is it 100% correct?
Of course not.
But is Al Gore 100%?
Of course not.

So, today I sought out more truth... and found you guys, among other sites. But you got the last 4 hours of my time...
Your premise, as I started with, strikes a chord with me, and I'm "with you", from that point.

But as an engineer, raised by two generations of engineers, they always said; "don't complain, unless you're ready to do something about it".
I want to fix it, but I don't think I have all of the facts.

The science and debate is great, but can we get a rolling summary somewhere?
A scale that the rest of us can work with?

In business, it's not uncommon to say; "I'd rather act today, on 90% of the knowledge, than wait for 100% to be available."
I could live with a plan, if I thought we had more than 70% of the data... but it doesn't feel like it.
It feels like we're around 40-50%.


We (Canada) signed Kyoto, so what.
We haven't met a single target, and spent the decade since it was signed, buying up credits from other countries, rather than trying to meet our targets.
But, when the new Prime Minister suggests that Kyoto isn't the solution, he takes abuse from people everywhere.
Yet, they don't want to hear about alternative plans either, assuming if he isn't 110% for Kyoto (which we know doesn't work), he's a danger to the environment.


In an effort to quantify this for people, is there some reason that this group here, through moderation and simple math, can't come up with some sort of scoring system, on climate change?

A rolling total, that adjusts as new proofs, papers, or 12,000 page documents, make weight in either direction, without bias?

Something that those of us who care to check in when we have the time, can look at, as a measuring stick on the real scientists in the world?

Something, that responsible journalism can keep tabs on?

Distortion?
In the GGWSwindle, there was a real person, telling me that he had to threaten legal action, to have his name removed from the ICCC report. Was he lying?
I didn't see anything he said, that could have been misinterpreted, or taken out of context.
So, if that's true, why was his opinion discounted.

I also have a cousin, who just returned from a six-month volunteer duty, in Africa, in the regions mentioned in the film. The stories she told me, about the people there, and the suffering, make the film's depiction of life there seem cheery by comparison... so I know they're not making that up.

You guys point out here, that developing nations are exempt from Kyoto, yet, the average media piece, or nay-sayer on the street, points the finger at these places, and says they THEY are the cause of man-made GG.


DO you see where my anger comes from?

There is this flurry of debate, and the media lives for a flurry, because of the inevitable conflicts that arise.

I want to do the right thing.
I no longer have a clue what that is.

I want to see the peoples of the world, improve their lives.
If we don't want them to use coal to do so, why don't we buy them CANDU reactors?
(for the uninitiated, you can't make WMD from CANDU reactor byproducts, in fact, the byproducts of 3rd gen CANDU, will actually feed 4th gen CANDU reactors)

But, if you want to pay for that, for them, to avoid the coal, we can't stop our economies in their tracks, like some would have you believe.

In Canada, they say we should shut down Alberta (kind of the Texas of Canada, for oil production)... but, for example, for every $1 that goes into the economy in Alberta from the oil, $1.60 goes into the economy of other provinces, in trickledowns.
So, if you want to not have the coal in Africa, you gotta leave something alone, somewhere else! (if you see my drift)

-sigh-

I'm not so angry now, as much as sort of sad.
(thanks for reading, if you have, this far)


So, here's my drift, that I sort of keep swinging around to.
Can we come up with some sort of almost statistical summary of the climate, GG (man made and non man made), sunspots, oceans, ice, phytoplankton, and whatever else... and work them into a summary page?

Something, in this volatile and ever changing scientific world, that keeps a running tally, on where things are at?
A score sheet?

Which things influence the climate, and to what degree?

Which are more important today, and what they are doing?

Something that balances out studies that favour one mindset, over another, in a way we can all understand and agree on.
Something that helps us understand, which are important, and which are not. (in a relative sense)

So, for example, if you have 30 studies on sunspot activity effect on global warming, and 25 say yes, in effect, 5 say no... you can report on the numbers.
Obviously, there is more than a yes or no, in EACH AND EVERY one of those studies, but, so, you come up with a scoring system. -5 for strongly disputes the fact, +5 for strongly supports the fact.

Anyhow, as you move down through the topics, maybe you can come up with a consensus, of where we are at, TODAY. It may adjust tomorrow.

I mean, if for example, at the end of all of that... you ended up with something like this:

- let me use my +5/-5 analogy.

+5 sunspots
+2 vegetation
+3 natural cycles
+2 co2 triggered by reaction to temp
-3 cows farting
-2 3rd world industry
-5 aliens from space
+1 man made co2

(yes, I got silly, but so did al gore using clips from Futurama)

If that's where the global warming debate score card landed today, by a reproducible agreed to system, I could digest that, and so could most of the public.
OBVIOUSLY for each area you select, you'd then link to and list all of the relevant resources, articles, papers, research data, etc.


But, I could now swallow it all, and still buy in, that I am actually having an effect. Not drastic (in my example only), but still an effect, therefore I need to act... but not act insane.

People need a course of action, that they can live with, and reasonable proof, that they can count on. Not this blind religious devotion that most environmentalists expect the masses to buy into.

Your idea of Michael Moore, or Clint Eastwood, is a nice one, but a live scorecard that everyone could understand, may be the more achievable goal.

It's also one, that you can show, and sell to politicians.

For example...
I have a connection, through volunteer work, with a sitting MP. (member of parliament)
I can tell you first hand, that there is NOTHING more frustrating to him, than the inaccuracy and hype in the media, over something that private polling tells them, is actually #5 or #6 on the average person's personal priority list.
He wishes, there was stable enough data, that they would actually have a few minutes to breathe, and take some concrete action, that might really mean something.
But not just GG, clean air, water, etc... those things that are being ignored in favour of GG.
Because you know what? He has a family, kids, and everything else that the rest of us care about too...


So, hey, maybe there is a place.
Maybe this is the place?

No idea.
Maybe I just wasted an hour of typing... but at least I have given the Advil time to work, and my head does feel better.

Thanks, to anyone who is still reading.
Andrew