Opinions vary. And that's the essence of the argument.
Some think that there has been no change. Michael Crighton in the Book
State of Fear outlines in exquisite detail "counter arguments" to the global warming theorem. It's a worthy read, entertaining, but rather "formulaic" in the classic Michael Crighton sense. He throws out some very "Un-PC" comments like the Academatician about to be eaten by cannibals whose last words are "We've got to understand them!"
But some including our esteemed former Vice President think there has been significant change - and the change is ongoing. And he has some rather compelling images and figures to back this up in his diatribe movie
An Inconvenient Truth.
Some like myself cite more down to earth documentation. For years, Yankee Magazine has published
The Old Farmer's Almanac And for years, since 1792 they have kept careful temperature records taken at Dublin, NH which are used somehow in making the following year's weather predictions.
Admittedly, these are not the most "accurate" of measurements. It's hard to calibrate a thermometer and likely they've gone through a few since 1792. But I might expect accuracy of plus or minus a degree since they have the interest to make them accurate - and the wherewithall to do so.
OFA reports that they see NO (Nada) increase in global temperature. The data has been turned over to experts who confirm this fact. Plus the fact that Dublin, NH is pretty much the same place it was in 1792 - no heat island effects, medocre traffic, similar forestation, etc. etc.
Also, there have been some "ups & downs" of the temperature in the shorter term. My elderly grade school teacher who was young in the early part of the 20th century was of the opinion that they could "always" skate on the local ponds in southeastern Taxachusetts at Thanksgiving. In my growing up years in the 1960s, this was NEVER possible.
Now I can't imagine that a near doubling in CO2 levels in the atmosphere could have NO effect whatsoever. But I imagine that increasing CO2 must have some sort of natural control: be it increased vegetation resulting from more CO2, or increased evaporation resulting from the vegetation resulting in more clouds and a natural shield to insolation. I truly wonder if the earth cannot accomodate what we have done already but that we're seeing the effects of this accomodation. Perhaps increasing sea levels (not proven either) are part of this accomodation?
Methinks it would be wise to somehow limit our further use of fossil fuels and take advantage of the natural forces that surround us: be it wind, solar, biomass (wood) or even nuclear.
(yes, nuclear is a natural force since the degradation of atomic mass occurs whether we use it's effects or not. It's our task to bring this atomic anomoly forth and use it - hopefully safely - to our advantage. If we don't use it, it will be lost forever.)
But the question of the moment is to somehow force this reduction in fossil fuels without resorting to governmental regulation. It may not be possible. Already, "Reggi" (The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative") has plans for limiting CO2 emission for powerplants and large industrial users. Ten state governments in the northeastern US have signed onto this regional agreement, and call Reggi results binding. And so far Reggi has held one "auction" of greenhouse "credits" which allow emission of one ton of C02 each credit - and PSNH has already announced plans to increase electric rates for Cow Hampshire to cover their cost of the REGGI auction. And more auctions are planned. See
www.rggi.org for more information.
Meanwhile Congress is watching the Reggi auction closely and making it's own plans. See
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/110th Congress Economy-wide CapTrade Proposals 10-18-2007.pdf which is the Pew Center for Global Climate Change's take on Congressional action. Note that some of these plans are more restrictive than others. Also that Mr. McCain and Ms. Pelosi (p.2) have both been involved in plan development - which indicate to me that Congress has a consensus of sorts occuring regarding the
need for legislation.
Now all Congressional legislation so far has been aimed at
major users of fossil fuels. And with increasing regulation, you know what will happen. As major sources of energy become more expensive, people will seek out cheaper and perhaps more locally sourced energy. But the screw may also be turning tighter on this. A recent west coast environmental conference outlined on NPR indicated that there is interest among the greens to increased regulation of a smaller scale. One respondant to the reporter's inquiry regarding needed legislation remarked that he hoped Obama would find a way to regulate automotive emissions. Of course this "ratcheting down" of legislation will have a very BIG effect on your pocketbook and mine.
More worldwide, China is still considered by the Kyoto Protocols a "developing nation." And having voted for CO2 reductions for others, they have coveniently written themselves OUT of the restriction because they are still "in development." Yuh! In 2008, China will now for the first time exceed the US in CO2 emissions.
It's interesting to see what the globalists have in mind for us.
Get your diesels, steam engines, solar panels, hydronic panels, wind generators NOW before the rush. And expect your local economy to be in the doldrums for at least a generation while the globalists decide what further penance we're to be required to pay for our progress.
Joe
