Replies to post #475 on The Rising Influence of Rising Affluence

[old man]

I think it’s fair to say that the majority of peer reviewed research re global warming and its causes supports the hypothesis that man plays a substantial role, at the very least a role that man has the ability to have a measurable effect. Now it is possible that these scientists are subject to group think and that the opposing scientists, a minority, are correct. It’s also quite clear that the science is evolving and we don’t know as much as we will know in 10 or 20 years. But if you are responsible for making policy and you’re hearing from a large segment of the scientific community that unless substantial action is taken fairly soon a tipping point might be reached with potentially catastrophic consequences then I think that you are under a great deal of pressure to enact mitigating policies.

If I were judge the motivations of the IPCC and the MIT scientists to the motivations of Senator Inhofe I’d side with the former but that's just me. This is not to say cap and trade is the best policy.

The article below describes some recent work by MIT scientists.

John

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/02/new_research_from_mit_scientis.html

[north40000]

Anent this post as well as the next one, I recall reading several months ago about discoveries under the north polar ice-cap by scientists in subs[NOAA?] of substantial, theretofore unknown volcanic activity in the Arctic Ocean. Postulations were that such volcanic activity with concomitant heat, CO2 and S gases release could account for a substantial portion of polar ice cap melt and global warming.

I have seen no further articles on that subject, perhaps because I do not look in the right places. Or have those research findings been buried also?

[DewDiligence]

Pickens Predicts CNG Bill Enacted by May 2010:

#msg-45843792

Comments?