>>Could it be caused primarily by solar activity? If there were detectable warming on Mars would that support this alternative theory?

No (definitely not primarily). First off, the solar activity idea has been considered seriously by a number of scientists and rejected based on more appropriate analysis of the original data in the 1991 Science paper (done by the original authors) and by further work. (For example, see http://www.edf.org/documents/5544_SolarActivity_One-pager.pdf for a brief explanation; there are a number of other new studies addressing this issue).

>> How about prior warming trends when we had a significantly smaller carbon footprint? Would this indicate that the current warming is not man-made?

I don’t know any scientists who deny that there were ever warming trends before, but the _rapidity_ of this warming, and the fact that it is accompanied by a significant change in atmostpheric chemistry, raises serious concerns. We lack the technology (and, in most cases, the money) to examine climate proxies (e.g. ice cores, pollen records, tree-ring records) at a fine enough scale to precisely time previous warming events, but for now most evidence indicates that todays warming is faster than in recent earth history.

Regardless of how I feel about Gore’s movie and about the politics surrounding global warming, I find his titile, ‘An Incovenient Truth’, to be quite telling in why there is so much skepticism about this. People were happy to trust scientists over the ozone hole, when the only action required was changing their hair-spray and the delivery of their antiperspirant (yes, it was more complicated in industry, but nothing on the level of green energy). But it is inconvenient to consider giving up oil revenues, cheap coal, heavy gas-powered engines…and suddenly there is doubt about the state of atmospheric science. Instead of America rising to technological challenges, using adaptability to solve problems, there is a tremendous complacency in big business and politics. I find that far more dangerous than pork barrel politics in science–which I think, like most pork, gets used in some good ways and some bad ways.

If in fact you have a Ph.D. in the physical sciences (and I have no reason to doubt you) you are certainly better positioned to make informed opinions about environmental matters than most people of any political party. I respect your knowledge and your degree. Still, I’m sure you would agree that this does not give you a monopoly on informed thought. I know for certain that I can find experienced and well educated scientists and engineers that take exception to much of the current thought about environmental issues. I’ve worked with a bunch of them for many years. Some specialize in the environmental sciences.

The truth is that we really don’t fully understand what is causing the current warming pattern or how long it will continue. Could it be caused primarily by solar activity? If there were detectable warming on Mars would that support this alternative theory? How about prior warming trends when we had a significantly smaller carbon footprint? Would this indicate that the current warming is not man-made? It seems quite apparent to me that some things don’t add up. And since we’ve been through other pseudo crises in the past (e.g. the overpopulation scare in the 60’s and 70’s) I am highly suspicious of man-made global warming.

Another aspect of the issue is that we don’t completely understand how much warming is required to be harmful. In other words, a certain amount of climate change may not be a bad thing. We have computer model predictions, but these are not the same as knowing the potential impact.

I am not against research to develop solutions to known problems. It would be irresponsible to not do so. What I am against is the growing politicization of science. This is a huge problem because it’s leading to bad policy and inefficient use of our national resources. To better understand what I’m trying to say in a few words, you might want to check out “Science Funding — Politics & Porkbarrel” by Joseph P. Martino (ISBN 1-56000-033-3).

Just one man’s opinion.

Secondly, your objection to her doubts about man-made global warming are something you better get used to. As science and common sense eventually overtake political correctness, man-made global warming will be recognized for what it is, just another Chicken Little story.

Protecting the environment needs to be based on sensibility and sound science rather than irrationality, panic and political agendas.

That’s my two-cents worth.

She also in agreement to bring gold & copper mines to southwest Alaska. These mines would be positioned in such a way that they would release toxic chemicals into Bristol Bay, which just happens to be Americas most productive salmon fishery.

Palin may turn out to be the greatest thing that ever happened to America. Through no fault of her own — she has supplied John McCain with the hypocritical notion that will jetison Obama into the White House.