Gutmann wasted her speech on touting her own environmental initiatives and putting forth the myth of human-induced global warming. Way to go.

[QUOTE id="7ce7a694-091f-40cb-b316-1e6079dfb486"]Gutmann wasted her speech on touting her own environmental initiatives and putting forth the myth of human-induced global warming. Way to go.[/QUOTE] Hopefully in your last year at Penn, you'll learn that the vast majority of scientists (and a virtual consensus of those not funded by right-wing think tanks and/or carbon emitting industries) know far more about this subject than you do. Doubtful.

[QUOTE id="7ce7a694-091f-40cb-b316-1e6079dfb486"]Gutmann wasted her speech on touting her own environmental initiatives and putting forth the myth of human-induced global warming. Way to go.[/QUOTE] I know!!! Hasn't she ever talked to Gieg??

Like Professor Giegengack at Penn? Or Richard Lindzen, the professor of meteorology at MIT? Or do you mean the other 17,200 scientists who have signed OISM's global warming petition? (http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm). There are plenty of well-respected (yes, well-respected) scientists out there who believe that the theory of man-made global warming is just hype. They note that the earth has undergone natural temperature fluctuations for eons (remember the global cooling scare in the 1970s? It made the front page of Newsweek). You should really read up on the topic. As an alum reading the Summer DP, I'm sure you have some extra time on your hands: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

[QUOTE id="eb0ff5df-a461-413a-864c-d395780270b6"]Like Professor Giegengack at Penn? Or Richard Lindzen, the professor of meteorology at MIT? Or do you mean the other 17,200 scientists who have signed OISM's global warming petition? (http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm). There are plenty of well-respected (yes, well-respected) scientists out there who believe that the theory of man-made global warming is just hype. They note that the earth has undergone natural temperature fluctuations for eons (remember the global cooling scare in the 1970s? It made the front page of Newsweek). You should really read up on the topic. As an alum reading the Summer DP, I'm sure you have some extra time on your hands: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597[/QUOTE] I could base my view on what the WSJ has to say on the subject, or I could look at legitimate scientific consensus. You can take the former, I'll take the latter... You can call it a myth, but the evidence is clearly not pointing to your wished truth here. Ignoring your ad-hominem attack about how I spend my time, here is some reading for you from crazy pseudo-sciency lefty orgs (not): The National Academy of Sciences: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement." http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf The US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, EarthÃ?s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National AcademiesÃ? reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..." http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf The Joint Science Academies: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf The American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papersÃ?the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequatelyÃ?can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. The IPCC was established ... to fulfill the critical role of providing objective scientific, technical, and economic assessments of the current state of knowledge about various aspects of climate change. IPCC assessment reports are prepared ... by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions." http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html Here are some other crazy pseudo-scientific organizations. Let me know if you want links. US National Research Council American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Astronomical Society The Federal Climate Change Science Program The American Association for the Advancement of Science Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London Geological Society of America American Association of State Climatologists Of course, there is some dissent... the American Association of Petroleum Geologists states, much like you do, that "recently published research results do not support the supposition of an anthropogenic cause of global climate change...Detailed examination of current climate data strongly suggests that current observations do not correlate with the assumptions or supportable projections of human-induced greenhouse effects." Hover they have since revised thier statements to note, "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members." Oh well, keep sticking that head in the sand. I mean, what's the worst that could happen if you're wrong...

Anyone can pull together a bunch of links. The one from the WSJ is written by an MIT scientist, not the WSJ editorial board, which gives it more credibility. Based on your theory and those of "most" scientists, I guess we can conclude that the recent global warming of Mars is also the result of human carbon emissions. Let me know when the sky starts falling...until then, get back to work!

Thanks for dismissing thousands of scientists. I don't think I've ever seen a more classic case of a few exceptions proving a rule. It's exeptionally funny that you can can dismiss my links from the most reputable scientific organizations in America when your case is focused on... get this... a link to a WSJ editorial from one of a negligible number of dissenters. But then again, given your case, intellectual honesty has little to do with your motivation. Noone is saying there is no dissent, but it is truly far and few in between, and even more so once you control for the financial and political interests of those making the case. Singling out the handful of scientists who disagree, as if that serves as justification for deriding the enviornmentally positive initiatives taken by President Gutmann or anyone else, is not only irresponsible, it's gutless. Yes, the earth has been hotter before, but it has never changed so quickly, and there has never been a comparable level of carbon in our atmosphere. Core samples of Antarctic ice can prove this beyond doubt. While there are many things that point to cyclical changes in the earth's temperature, there are also many characteristics of the current scenario which have never before been seen. I won't have to let you know when the sky is falling, because by then it will be way, way too late. Heck, it may already be, but at least my side is offering something productive, and dare I say, economically and technologically revolutionary. Here's the difference between you and me: If I'm wrong, the worst thing we do is clean up our air, increase our energy independence and put the US back on top in terms of technological innovation.

...and ruin our economy, and give credibility to a whole bunch of leftist whackos (not the scientists, but the pundits like Gore & Company) who are using global warming as a cover to increase government control of people (i.e. no more SUVs, etc.) Kyoto failed in the Senate under Pres. Clinton by a vote of 99-0 exactly because politicians on both sides of the aisle recognize the detrimental impact that proposed carbon emission cuts could have on the economy. And of course, when the economy tanks, you'll blame Bush.

[QUOTE id="590590f1-f60a-4621-b051-7daa29772d5e"]...and ruin our economy, and give credibility to a whole bunch of leftist whackos (not the scientists, but the pundits like Gore & Company) who are using global warming as a cover to increase government control of people (i.e. no more SUVs, etc.) Kyoto failed in the Senate under Pres. Clinton by a vote of 99-0 exactly because politicians on both sides of the aisle recognize the detrimental impact that proposed carbon emission cuts could have on the economy. And of course, when the economy tanks, you'll blame Bush.[/QUOTE] Kyoto failed because it contained exceptions for huge and soon to be huge polluters such as China and India, and because politicians, on both sides, failed to provide the US with the opportunity to demonstrate leadership on the world stage. As for ruining the economy, what a load of crap. Seriously, who's saying the sky is falling now? The same sutpid and/or self serving arguments have been made against CAFE standards for more than 30 years now, with not one of the catastrauphic predictions bearing fruit -- in fact, resistance and minimal adeherance to these standards has allowed the US auto industry to lag far behind the cleaner and more economic Asian industry to an embarassing degree. A degree I might add, was mitigated ONLY by regulation and increased standards for the industry. Preserving the "old way" of doing things and economic armageddonism against innovation have been nothing but counterproductive to American industry. Only the entrenched and unimaginative have anything to worry about in an enviornmentally motivated economy. On second thought, maybe you should be running for cover.

NYC Alum '02... Before going off and sounding like you know all there is to know on a topic, read the research you cite a bit more carefully. If you had, you would know that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has exceeded the current level in the past as shown by the very ice core samples you cite. The current appx. 380ppm concentration was exceeded in the past and current research suggest that the link between CO2 concentrations and temperature change over the last 400,000 years is not causal, in fact the CO2 increases have occurred after, not before the cyclical increases in global temperature in the past.

Approximately 10,000 years ago, the Artic ocean had the same average year round temperature as Lake Ontario and Lake Erie do today. Cyclical historic variances in climate are profound. Can man do anything to prevent it? Probably not. Can we do anything to lessen its impact? Maybe. If nothing else it may reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. We may only need oil for another 75 years or so. Holograms will more likely replace the automobile and airplane as a form of travel.

[QUOTE id="bb4ad1eb-c9af-4936-9dac-50bc84940f61"]NYC Alum '02... Before going off and sounding like you know all there is to know on a topic, read the research you cite a bit more carefully. If you had, you would know that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has exceeded the current level in the past as shown by the very ice core samples you cite. The current appx. 380ppm concentration was exceeded in the past and current research suggest that the link between CO2 concentrations and temperature change over the last 400,000 years is not causal, in fact the CO2 increases have occurred after, not before the cyclical increases in global temperature in the past.[/QUOTE] Dima, let me thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify. My original statement told only part of the picture. Though never before have the CO2 levels really broached the 300ppm mark, let alone come close the current level of 380ppm, there is far more disturbing scientific data to be gleaned from our Antarctic ice cores. What I should have also pointed out is that at no point in our world's history (at least as far back as ice core samples allow us to determine) has the co2 level in our atmosphere increased at such a rapid rate. Not even close. Coincidentally (or perhaps NOT coincidentally) this unprecedented, rapid increase corresponds precisely with our industrial revolution. Most graphs don't actually portray this very well, since the core samples date back hundreds of thousands of years, and the measurable impact of human existence on our atmosphere is at most a few thousand years old. I assume global warming critics (which I will do you the service of not assuming you are) are fond of this graph, http://seoblackhat.com/images/co2-vs-temp.jpg (on which of course, the end of this graph: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/art/graph4.gif is not quite clear), yet neither of these graphs present a particularly fair picture. The last 800 millennia compresses a lot of information into a graph small enough to fit onto a computer screen, so perhaps a more instructive view would show us the how the industrial revolution fits into the last millennium: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image18.gif Again, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to clarify and even provide more evidence for my case. It's good to know that some people can discuss this pressing use in real, scientific terms, without resorting to ironic attacks against leftists (read: most scientists and even a fair chuck of both parties) "whackos". Thanks and have a great weekend.

[QUOTE id="bb4ad1eb-c9af-4936-9dac-50bc84940f61"]NYC Alum '02... Before going off and sounding like you know all there is to know on a topic, read the research you cite a bit more carefully. If you had, you would know that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has exceeded the current level in the past as shown by the very ice core samples you cite. The current appx. 380ppm concentration was exceeded in the past and current research suggest that the link between CO2 concentrations and temperature change over the last 400,000 years is not causal, in fact the CO2 increases have occurred after, not before the cyclical increases in global temperature in the past.[/QUOTE] Dima, let me thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify. My original statement told only part of the picture. Though never before have the CO2 levels really broached the 300ppm mark, let alone come close the current level of 380ppm, there is far more disturbing scientific data to be gleaned from our Antarctic ice cores. What I should have also pointed out is that at no point in our world's history (at least as far back as ice core samples allow us to determine) has the co2 level in our atmosphere increased at such a rapid rate. Not even close. Coincidentally (or perhaps NOT coincidentally) this unprecedented, rapid increase corresponds precisely with our industrial revolution. Most graphs don't actually portray this very well, since the core samples date back hundreds of thousands of years, and the measurable impact of human existence on our atmosphere is at most a few thousand years old. I assume global warming critics (which I will do you the service of not assuming you are) are fond of this graph, http://seoblackhat.com/images/co2-vs-temp.jpg (on which of course, the end of this graph: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/art/graph4.gif is not quite clear), yet neither of these graphs present a particularly fair picture. The last 800 millennia compresses a lot of information into a graph small enough to fit onto a computer screen, so perhaps a more instructive view would show us the how the industrial revolution fits into the last millenium: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image18.gif Again, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to clarify and even provide more evidence for my case. It's good to know that some people can discuss this pressing use in real, scientific terms, without resorting to ironic attacks against leftists (read: most scientists and even a fair chuck of both parties) "whackos". Thanks and have a great weekend.

[QUOTE id="bb4ad1eb-c9af-4936-9dac-50bc84940f61"]NYC Alum '02... Before going off and sounding like you know all there is to know on a topic, read the research you cite a bit more carefully. If you had, you would know that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has exceeded the current level in the past as shown by the very ice core samples you cite. The current appx. 380ppm concentration was exceeded in the past and current research suggest that the link between CO2 concentrations and temperature change over the last 400,000 years is not causal, in fact the CO2 increases have occurred after, not before the cyclical increases in global temperature in the past.[/QUOTE] Dima, let me thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify. My original statement told only part of the picture. Though never before have the CO2 levels really broached the 300ppm mark, let alone come close the current level of 380ppm, there is far more disturbing scientific data to be gleaned from our Antarctic ice cores. What I should have also pointed out is that at no point in our world's history (at least as far back as ice core samples allow us to determine) has the co2 level in our atmosphere increased at such a rapid rate. Not even close. Coincidentally (or perhaps NOT coincidentally) this unprecedented, rapid increase corresponds precisely with our industrial revolution. Most graphs don't actually portray this very well, since the core samples date back hundreds of thousands of years, and the measurable impact of human existence on our atmosphere is at most a few thousand years old. I assume global warming critics (which I will do you the service of not assuming you are) are fond of this graph, http://seoblackhat.com/images/co2-vs-temp.jpg (on which of course, the end of this graph: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/art/graph4.gif is not quite clear), yet neither of these graphs present a particularly fair picture. The last 800 millennia compresses a lot of information into a graph small enough to fit onto a computer screen, so perhaps a more instructive view would show us the how the industrial revolution fits into the last millennium: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image18.gif Again, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to clarify and even provide more evidence for my case. It's good to know that some people can discuss this pressing use in real, scientific terms, without resorting to ironic attacks against leftists (read: most scientists and even a fair chuck of both parties) "whackos". Thanks and have a great weekend.

As fun as it is to argue about global warming, all I really care about is the fact that Gutmann is a horrible speaker. Save it for some other time when I'm not trying to celebrate four years of hard work...

Dima, let me thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify. My original statement told only part of the picture. Though never before have the CO2 levels really broached the 300ppm mark, let alone come close the current level of 380ppm, there is far more disturbing scientific data to be gleaned from our Antarctic ice cores. What I should have also pointed out is that at no point in our world's history (at least as far back as ice core samples allow us to determine) has the co2 level in our atmosphere increased at such a rapid rate. Not even close. Coincidentally (or perhaps NOT coincidentally) this unprecedented, rapid increase corresponds precisely with our industrial revolution. Most graphs don't actually portray this very well, since the core samples date back hundreds of thousands of years, and the measurable impact of human existence on our atmosphere is at most a few thousand years old. I assume global warming critics (which I will do you the service of not assuming you are) are fond of this graph, http://seoblackhat.com/images/co2-vs-temp.jpg (on which of course, the end of this graph: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/art/graph4.gif is not quite clear), yet neither of these graphs present a particularly fair picture. The last 800 millennia compresses a lot of information into a graph small enough to fit onto a computer screen, so perhaps a more instructive view would show us the how the industrial revolution fits into the last millennium: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image18.gif Again, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to clarify and even provide more evidence for my case. It's good to know that some people can discuss this pressing use in real, scientific terms, without resorting to ironic attacks against leftists (read: most scientists and even a fair chuck of both parties) "whackos". Thanks and have a great weekend.

Fifty bucks says the first comment is either written by Brian Quimby or written by a close associate...

[QUOTE id="bb4ad1eb-c9af-4936-9dac-50bc84940f61"]NYC Alum '02... Before going off and sounding like you know all there is to know on a topic, read the research you cite a bit more carefully. If you had, you would know that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has exceeded the current level in the past as shown by the very ice core samples you cite. The current appx. 380ppm concentration was exceeded in the past and current research suggest that the link between CO2 concentrations and temperature change over the last 400,000 years is not causal, in fact the CO2 increases have occurred after, not before the cyclical increases in global temperature in the past.[/QUOTE] Dima, I sent in another comment refuting this statement in greater detail, but perhaps because of my links, it was not posted over the weekend. Indeed, the evidence gleaned from the Antarctic ice cores is even more alarming than I originally stated, and I appreciated the opportunity to make a fuller case, but in the event that my comment never appears, I do want to make sure not to let your false statement stand as fact. There has NEVER been a co2 concentration measured above 300ppm, let alone 380ppm. Furthermore, there has never been an increase measured over so short a period of time. "Coincidentally", this increase corresponds almost precicely with the industrial revolution.

[QUOTE id="2dac4494-8870-47c6-b3dc-14c0ca1e93c6"]As fun as it is to argue about global warming, all I really care about is the fact that Gutmann is a horrible speaker. Save it for some other time when I'm not trying to celebrate four years of hard work...[/QUOTE] THANK YOU!! I couldn't agree more!

[QUOTE id="99c2a9a3-1120-4f30-b8b6-b3ef5a10c2d3"]Approximately 10,000 years ago, the Artic ocean had the same average year round temperature as Lake Ontario and Lake Erie do today. Cyclical historic variances in climate are profound. Can man do anything to prevent it? Probably not. Can we do anything to lessen its impact? Maybe. If nothing else it may reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. We may only need oil for another 75 years or so. Holograms will more likely replace the automobile and airplane as a form of travel.[/QUOTE] Dima, let me thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify. My original statement told only part of the picture. Though never before have the CO2 levels really broached the 300ppm mark, let alone come close the current level of 380ppm, there is far more disturbing scientific data to be gleaned from our Antarctic ice cores. What I should have also pointed out is that at no point in our world's history (at least as far back as ice core samples allow us to determine) has the co2 level in our atmosphere increased at such a rapid rate. Not even close. Coincidentally (or perhaps NOT coincidentally) this unprecedented, rapid increase corresponds precisely with our industrial revolution. Most graphs don't actually portray this very well, since the core samples date back hundreds of thousands of years, and the measurable impact of human existence on our atmosphere is at most a few thousand years old. I assume global warming critics (which I will do you the service of not assuming you are) are fond of this graph, http://seoblackhat.com/images/co2-vs-temp.jpg (on which of course, the end of this graph: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/art/graph4.gif is not quite clear), yet neither of these graphs present a particularly fair picture. The last 800 millennia compresses a lot of information into a graph small enough to fit onto a computer screen, so perhaps a more instructive view would show us the how the industrial revolution fits into the last millennium: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image18.gif Again, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to clarify and even provide more evidence for my case. It's good to know that some people can discuss this pressing use in real, scientific terms, without resorting to ironic attacks against leftists (read: most scientists and even a fair chunk of both parties) "whackos". Hope you had a nice weekend.