O GOVERNO AMERICANO AGIU A FAVOR DO POVO

QUEREM CRIAR UMA AMPLA RECESSÃO, DE QUALQUER JEITO

Pela primeira vez, em décadas, o Tesouro Americano deixou de tutelar, de fato, as sugestões e iniciativas dos grandes cartéis financeiros. E essa inesperada reação, com o anúncio de um pacote de medidas pelo governo americano, que não beneficia bancos, mas a economia do país e milhões de americanos, está acarretando, em cadeia,uma forte transformação no mercado financeiro mundial cartelizado.

O governo americano entendeu e outras nações também devem entender, que a fragilidade dos Bancos Centrais no monitoramento
do sistema financeiro, é que está causando tanta tempestade e rebordosa.

O mundo se cartelizou no sistema financeiro, no petróleo, nas bolsas de valores e de mercadorias e em uma dezena de outras atividades e os governantes das principais nações do mundo, ficaram escravos e impotentes para agirem na defesa dos interesses dos povos de suas nações.

E, agora, estamos vendo, com transparência,como o sistema financeiro agia em absoluta tranquilidade e, em, alguns casos, com irresponsabilidade total e impunidade que continua até hoje. E esse alvoroço todo só tem um culpado, o próprio sistema financeiro, sofisticado, competente, ágil e se comunicando para iniciativas de um mesmo comando e On line.Por outro lado, os Bancos Centrais não foram capazes de acompanhar e de monitorar essa evolução que beneficia milhares, em detrimento de bilhões de pessoas.

Os cartéis estão tentando, de todas as formas, um maior envolvimento do Tesouro americano, com a crise que os próprios bancos criarem, alimentarem e se beneficiaram dela, auferindo lucros de alguns bilhões de dólares. Agora, terão que voltar ao mundo real,entendendo que o dinheiro de bilhões de pessoas não pode mais ser transferido para milhares de pessoas da especulação volátil, improdutiva, sem custo, mas com sacrificio e a troco de que ou de quem ?

Uma nova paginação para os Bancos Centrais e para o sistema financeiro é imperativa, urgente e passa necessariamente por profundas transformações, benéficas para as Contas do Tesouro de países pobres e ricos, totalmente factíveis e de efeito imediato, dependendo apenas da vontade política das Nações.

Como os cartéis que atuam em todas as áreas, estão cada vez mais fortes e os governos cada vez mais fracos para enfrentá-los, basta simplesmente a criação do Cartel do Povo,via Tratado ou qualquer outro instrumento, através dos governantes do G-20, para defender os direitos de mais de 6 bilhões de pessoas, apenas limitando o ágio, acima da inflação, a um porcentual máximo de 3%, para rolagem ou assunção de dividas. É uma iniciativa de efeito multiplicador, democrática, capitalista e de cunho também profundamente social e que pode gerar economia de mais de USD 1 trilhão para os cofres de países ricos e pobres e os matemáticos podem confirmar. E com isso, com certeza, não haverá mais a necessidade da costumeira democratização de lucros e da socialização de prejuízos( em nome do mercado livre) e o mundo viverá em tranquilidade para gerar mais riquezas e reduzir as gritantes desigualdades entre nações ricas e nações pobres e para extinguir a categoria de indigentes. Em consequencia, a vergonhosa ratificação estatística de que somente 2% da população mundial responde por 50% da riquezas, será compulsoriamente reduzida, ano a ano. E o Brasil, que assumirá, em poucos dias, a Presidencia Financeira do G-20, poderá entrar para a história das nações, se conseguir criar esse Cartel que defenderá os interesses de bilhões de pessoas, para que tenham condições dígnas de vida.

Quanto ao sistema financeiro, que ganhou muito com as Letras Hipotecárias, em Investimentos de alto risco e ainda acumula lucros de bilhões de dólares nos últimos cinco anos, é natural que devolva agora parte dessa gordura que está bem localizada e que não levará o paciente à UTI. E países como o Brasil, devem refletir,com calma, sobre a importancia da iniciativa do governo americano ao cortar o cordão umbilical atado ao pernicuioso protecionismo ao capital especutivo mundial. Essa corrente americana começou e deve continuar e se fortalecer, mesmo com as fortes pressões de todos os lados, porque está no correto caminho de defender bilhões para não continuar privilegiando somente milhares de pessoas. O capitalismo de hoje nunca mais será o capitalismo perverso de ontem, felizmente.Esperamos que o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, não deixe que o noticiário da imprensa mundial e dirigido, atrapalhe a tragetória de queda da Selic, em decorrencia das frágeis argumentações. Façamos uma corrente prá frente, Brasil.E PARA ONDE VAI OU ESTÁ INDO O CAPITAL APÁTRICA DE TRILHÕES DE DÓLARES ?

JUROS ALTOS E INFLAÇÃO BAIXA , É MÉRITO ?

Será que é recomendável para o Brasil, que irá ocupar este ano, a PRESIDÊNCIA FINANCEIRA, do G-20, levar como credencial, na BAGAGEM, e como PÉSSIMA referencia, a informação de que o nosso país paga ágio de 7,25%, para manter a taxa de inflação em 4,46% ?. Afinal, é um ágio de 160% acima da inflação e nenhum desses países deve estar pagando essa taxação de usura, porque o custo existente, além de injustificável, não transfere nenhum benefício ao Povo.

Verifiquem, por favor, nominando os ágios que esses países pagam, para uma simulação verdadeira com as vantagens do capital especulativo em nosso país.

O Brasil poderia aproveitar essa excelente oportunidade de comando e propor , para o G-20, uma Resolução determinando que nenhum desses países pode pagar ágios superiores a 4% acima da inflação,protegendo, assim,a economia de nações ricas e pobres da especulação financeira mundial. Afinal, o cartel financeiro especulativo mundial já se organizou há muito tempo e está agindo on line c/ muita competencia, para descapitalizar a poupança de muitos países, através da Bovespa, BM&F e Títulos do Governo. E porque os Governos também ñ podem se unir na defesa dos interesses maiores de SUAS NAÇÕES ? Os Bancos Centrais não podem continuar com a inércia de hoje e a reboque do CAPITAL VOLÁTIL E APÁTRIDA. Basta simplesemnte agir , se modernizando E MONITORANDO, com rigor, o sistema FINANCEIRO, NA DEFESA do ESTADO E NÃO SÓ FICANDO
ALIMENTANDO ESSE CAPITAL DE CASSINO. O MERCADO LIVRE TAMBÉM TEM O SEU LIMITE . E POR NÃO RESPEITAR ESSE LIMITE E SE AUTO REGULAMENTAR, COM ABSOLUTA LIBERDADE, É QUE CRIAM CRISES COMO A DAS LETRAS HIPOTECÁRIAS AMERICANAS E CONTINUA IMPUNE, BOLANDO NOVOS ASSALTOS AOS BOLSOS DOS BRASILEIROS.

Pagando ágio de 7,25% acima da inflação, é muito fácil o seu controle, mas muito caro para o tesouro Nacional. CÁLCULOS que ninguem se propõe a fazer.

E, os reflexos nos custos,nas Contas do Goveno, estamos vendo, com a transferencia de mais de R$ 60 bilhões da Conta de Juros não Pagos, p/ a Conta do Prinicipal da Dívida, porque o superavit primário só irá cobrir uns R$ 100 bilhões de \juros Anuais.

E, ainda p/ cima, só as reservas internacionais estão consumindo mais de R$ 16 bi anuais do TN ( diferença entre o q recebemos e o que pagamos para mante-las), financiando o Tesouro americano( maior PIB mundial ou precisamente 1/4).Embora sejamos o menor PIB do G-15.Dá para entender, o país pobre e em desenvolvimento, financiando, à custa do suor de milhões de brasileiros o país rico ?

Destacar mais de 30% de todas as receitas do TN ( s/ INSS), só para pagar juros elevados, será que é mérito e para debeficiar a quem ? Porque ao Povo, com clareza, Não.

Será que de fato, o ágio que pagamos acima da inflação, não é devido à garantia de rolagem mais fácil de nossa dívida que é erroniamente concentrada no Curto Prazo?. E porque o Banco Central não muda o ferfil dessa dívida no Curto para o LONGO PRAZO, sabendo que o Tesouro está CADA VEZ mais vulnerável ao comando dos especuladores internacionais?

Faltam muitas respostas para a manutençao de uma selic elevada e dos pagamentos de juros e engargos que passaram de R$ 160 bilhões em 2007.

Será que para alcançar a meta inflacionária de 4,46% era
realmente necessário o Tesouro Nacional concordar com uma Selic tão despropositada ?. Porque mais de 15 países, com PIB duas a 5 vezes maior do que o do Brasil, refletindo em maior capacidade de consumo, não precisam de ágio tão elevado para conter ainflação ?. Como a sétima economia mundial, somos um péssimo exemplo a dar ao mundo. E olha, se a Selic estivesse em 8,92% ( 100% acima da inflação), a meta do Banco Central não seria comprometida e o Tesouro Nacional (dinheiro do povo) teria uma economia real de quase R$ 30 bilhões, recursos esses suficientes para alavancar a infra estrutura de trasnporte, incluindo uma ferrovia de norte a sul e de leste a oeste, além do trem bala rio são paulo e outros investimentos sociais prioritários.

Enquanto tivemos pressão por demanda de produtos alimentícios , a China também teve, em 18% e o Brasil sómente em 13%. Mas a inflação chinesa foi de 4,7% ou 0,24% maior do que a nossa e lá o ágio ñ passa de 2% acima de inflação. Quem está errado? Será que no grupo do G-20, o Brasil é o único certo?

E a pressão dos alimentos sobre a inflação,se resolve com um simples planejamento do Governo, porque temos uma das maiores áreas agricultáveis do planeta, o que falta ao Japão, Inglaterra, Itália , Alemanha, França e outros nações de primeiro mundo. Não culpem os alimentos como justificativa para uma Selic elevada, por favor. E tem mais, como o Feijão depende de duas Águas, sendo a primeira no plantio e, a segunda , quando estiver cozinhando na Penela, pode ter a prudução ampliada com financiamentos dirigidos aos Agricultores Familiares. O Consumo nacional do feijão não passa de 3,5 milhões de tonelas. Quanto ao Arroz,com consumo previsto de 13,5 milhões de toneladas e que não é um produto de Sequeiro, mas de Varzéas, Tocantins, Maranhão, Piaui, Mato Grosso e Rio Grande do Sul, podem aumentar imediatamente a produção irrigada para atender tranquilamente à demanda interna. Afinal,a maioria dos projetos de Irrigação são financiados a Fundo Perdido pelo Governo Federal, com recursos do Povo.

JUROS ALTOS E INFLAÇÃO BAIXA , É MÉRITO ?

Será que é recomendável para o Brasil, que irá ocupar este ano, a PRESIDÊNCIA FINANCEIRA, do G-20, levar como credencial, na BAGAGEM, e como PÉSSIMA referencia, a informação de que o nosso país paga ágio de 7,25%, para manter a taxa de inflação em 4,46% ?. Afinal, é um ágio de 160% acima da inflação e nenhum desses países deve estar pagando essa taxação de usura, porque o custo existente, além de injustificável, não transfere nenhum benefício ao Povo.

Verifiquem, por favor, nominando os ágios que esses países pagam, para uma simulação verdadeira com as vantagens do capital especulativo em nosso país.

O Brasil poderia aproveitar essa excelente oportunidade de comando e propor , para o G-20, uma Resolução determinando que nenhum desses países pode pagar ágios superiores a 4% acima da inflação,protegendo, assim,a economia de nações ricas e pobres da especulação financeira mundial. Afinal, o cartel financeiro especulativo mundial já se organizou há muito tempo e está agindo on line c/ muita competencia, para descapitalizar a poupança de muitos países, através da Bovespa, BM&F e Títulos do Governo. E porque os Governos também ñ podem se unir na defesa dos interesses maiores de SUAS NAÇÕES ? Os Bancos Centrais não podem continuar com a inércia de hoje e a reboque do CAPITAL VOLÁTIL E APÁTRIDA. Basta simplesemnte agir , se modernizando E MONITORANDO, com rigor, o sistema FINANCEIRO, NA DEFESA do ESTADO E NÃO SÓ FICANDO
ALIMENTANDO ESSE CAPITAL DE CASSINO. O MERCADO LIVRE TAMBÉM TEM O SEU LIMITE . E POR NÃO RESPEITAR ESSE LIMITE E SE AUTO REGULAMENTAR, COM ABSOLUTA LIBERDADE, É QUE CRIAM CRISES COMO A DAS LETRAS HIPOTECÁRIAS AMERICANAS E CONTINUA IMPUNE, BOLANDO NOVOS ASSALTOS AOS BOLSOS DOS BRASILEIROS.

Pagando ágio de 7,25% acima da inflação, é muito fácil o seu controle, mas muito caro para o tesouro Nacional. CÁLCULOS que ninguem se propõe a fazer.

E, os reflexos nos custos,nas Contas do Goveno, estamos vendo, com a transferencia de mais de R$ 60 bilhões da Conta de Juros não Pagos, p/ a Conta do Prinicipal da Dívida, porque o superavit primário só irá cobrir uns R$ 100 bilhões de \juros Anuais.

E, ainda p/ cima, só as reservas internacionais estão consumindo mais de R$ 16 bi anuais do TN ( diferença entre o q recebemos e o que pagamos para mante-las), financiando o Tesouro americano( maior PIB mundial ou precisamente 1/4).Embora sejamos o menor PIB do G-15.Dá para entender, o país pobre e em desenvolvimento, financiando, à custa do suor de milhões de brasileiros o país rico ?

Destacar mais de 30% de todas as receitas do TN ( s/ INSS), só para pagar juros elevados, será que é mérito e para debeficiar a quem ? Porque ao Povo, com clareza, Não.

Será que de fato, o ágio que pagamos acima da inflação, não é devido à garantia de rolagem mais fácil de nossa dívida que é erroniamente concentrada no Curto Prazo?. E porque o Banco Central não muda o ferfil dessa dívida no Curto para o LONGO PRAZO, sabendo que o Tesouro está CADA VEZ mais vulnerável ao comando dos especuladores internacionais?

Faltam muitas respostas para a manutençao de uma selic elevada e dos pagamentos de juros e engargos que passaram de R$ 160 bilhões em 2007.

Será que para alcançar a meta inflacionária de 4,46% era
realmente necessário o Tesouro Nacional concordar com uma Selic tão despropositada ?. Porque mais de 15 países, com PIB duas a 5 vezes maior do que o do Brasil, refletindo em maior capacidade de consumo, não precisam de ágio tão elevado para conter ainflação ?. Como a sétima economia mundial, somos um péssimo exemplo a dar ao mundo. E olha, se a Selic estivesse em 8,92% ( 100% acima da inflação), a meta do Banco Central não seria comprometida e o Tesouro Nacional (dinheiro do povo) teria uma economia real de quase R$ 30 bilhões, recursos esses suficientes para alavancar a infra estrutura de trasnporte, incluindo uma ferrovia de norte a sul e de leste a oeste, além do trem bala rio são paulo e outros investimentos sociais prioritários.

Enquanto tivemos pressão por demanda de produtos alimentícios , a China também teve, em 18% e o Brasil sómente em 13%. Mas a inflação chinesa foi de 4,7% ou 0,24% maior do que a nossa e lá o ágio ñ passa de 2% acima de inflação. Quem está errado? Será que no grupo do G-20, o Brasil é o único certo?

E a pressão dos alimentos sobre a inflação,se resolve com um simples planejamento do Governo, porque temos uma das maiores áreas agricultáveis do planeta, o que falta ao Japão, Inglaterra, Itália , Alemanha, França e outros nações de primeiro mundo. Não culpem os alimentos como justificativa para uma Selic elevada, por favor. E tem mais, como o Feijão depende de duas Águas, sendo a primeira no plantio e, a segunda , quando estiver cozinhando na Penela, pode ter a prudução ampliada com financiamentos dirigidos aos Agricultores Familiares. O Consumo nacional do feijão não passa de 3,5 milhões de tonelas. Quanto ao Arroz,com consumo previsto de 13,5 milhões de toneladas e que não é um produto de Sequeiro, mas de Varzéas, Tocantins, Maranhão, Piaui, Mato Grosso e Rio Grande do Sul, podem aumentar imediatamente a produção irrigada para atender tranquilamente à demanda interna. Afinal,a maioria dos projetos de Irrigação são financiados a Fundo Perdido pelo Governo Federal, com recursos do Povo.

"Scientist" - do you know what an ad hominem argument is?
"Scientist" do you know what a poseur, what a fraud you are?
Did you check the link? Do you even know how to do statistical analysis? Are you really a scientist?

Why do you want to see me dead? Especially in a "carbon neutral" nuclear reactor.

The market does not solve problems by magic but the 20th century should PROVE even to a pseudo scientist like you that government control of the economy to pursue ideological means on a global basis KILLS millions.

Ya dont need statistical analysis for dead kulaks, for Mao's iron campaign. For the globalist - zero tolerance for genetically enhanced foods STARVES millions just like zero tolerance for DDT doomed millions to preventable diseases.

Climate scientist, Scientist, Climate Guy, and my favorite, Whydontpostsshowup has yet to share any climate change mathematics or actually discuss any of global warming claims with facts and figures.

I guess we are too dumb or biased to understand him if he tried. But why if he is who he says he is can't he identify himself or at least identify sources and research beyond the error filled and simplistic Inconvenient Truth. Apparently our scientist wants to punish as sub-humans fellow scientists and doctors like Michael Crichton.

A real math scientist I picked randomly by Google
accepts carbon emissions into climate change and criticizes Crichton, but unless I misread the abstract he says we are due for a cyclical DECLINE in temperature that will be only curtailed or muted by increasing carbon emissions. http://math.nist.gov/~BRust/pubs/Interface2005/PrePrint.pdf

In the meantime, people are dying from real pollution, war, avertable disease, intolerance, oppression and various economic depradations that will NOT be alleviated by a global warming consensus. Green thru economic development and freedom is the only humane way, everything else is dictatorship of misguided global elitists.

Current climate change codes have proved to be extremely accurate, with the exception of underestimating fast transients.

My post clearly said that as we scientists get access to more powerful computers the results show the risk to be greater than previously thought and that we need to act sooner rather than previously thought to prevent disaster.

Not only can't the global warming deniers read the scientific literature, they apparently can't read at all.

Lets hope the deniers smoke two packs of cigarettes a day. If they don't believe CO2 causes global warming, they probably don't believe cigarettes cause lung cancer.

Have a nice strong drink with your cigarettes, deniers. They go really well together, and you had an uncle who smoked his whole life, right?

Richard - were you attempting irony when you ridiculed the writer for "engineering the planet" right before you propose ... engineering the planet? (ie, how does one "curb the cause" without engineering? By joining a commune and living in a dung hut perhaps?!)

Richard, I think his brother must own a company that produces white paint. Invest now! :)

You seriously want to engineer the global climate? You know all the positive and negative feedback mechanism? Quantitatively? You know what the delay of the response time would be? You know what the global shifts in local weather pattern would be as a consequence?

My respect, you seem intellectually far beyond us all.

I'd think it's probably better to curb the causes of global warming than to engineer this thing. Engineering seems to me a last, desperate try to avoid the worst.

Scientist:

A few questions for you-

1. As you point out, one of the limiting factors in Climatology has been the lack of access to supercomputing resources, a factor which is becoming less and less important every day as it becomes more widely available to non-weapons scientists. Current models have been proven radically wrong, which suggests a) the original hypothesis (ie, inputs) were wrong, or b) there are unaccounted forces at work. Considering the above points, how can you make such bold assertions about MMGW when the data is so thin and contradictory? If every doctor told me that I had cancer based on a theory that suffers from a dearth of data, that has been shown to be radically wrong in the past, then yes, I would seriously doubt it. (A mere generation ago doctors were prescribing leeches for blood disorders BTW.)

2. Why is the U.N. involved in MMGW if not for socio-political reasons? Are there U.N. political bodies studying Unified Field Theory, Cold Fusion, or the Wave/Particle Theory of Light? As a scientist, doesn't this trouble you?

3. Speaking of the IPCC, why do they use a 10% confidence interval when a 5% interval is used in everything else from business decisions to political polling? Isn't it a fair assumption that this is an acknowledgement that at the 5% interval their assertions fall apart?

4. Considering that the sun contains 98% of all the mass in the solar system and humans make up 0.033% of the biomass on earth, why is solar forcing dismissed so out of hand in favor of human forcing by MMGW adherents such as yourself?

Sorry you are so tired of us laymen, but as one who grew up in the world of grant-writing and publish-or-perish, I know full well that scientists are motivated by money and fame as much as any other sector of society. Just ask a certain South Korean genetisist.

The author states that "Scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories have calculated that if all the trees in the world were cut, atmospheric carbon would double. But snow in the higher latitudes would then reflect sunlight without being impeded by trees, and the cooling effect of this would exceed the greenhouse effect of more carbon, so the world would actually cool down!"

First off, exclamation points have no place in academic articles (not that this qualifies as such, but it certainly should disqualify it as one).

Secondly, while the first half of the quote above mentions a scientific analysis of the negative consequences of cutting down all trees, the second half (the world would cool down!) appears to be just a statement of the author's opinion based on no research whatsoever.

Then he gets into painting roofs white...

Please WP, this kind of article is on par with National Enquirer standards. I expect better of this paper.

How have we determined that global warming is a bad thing? Maybe it would be better to heat up the Earth a few degrees. Obviously, the Earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles far higher and lower than current average temperatures - long before the advent of Mankind or our technology. If anything, it would be far easier to induce global cooling artificially - as Mr. Aiar suggests. Yes, "original sin" is a very apt turn of phrase. It seems that the apostles of carbon emission reduction make their arguments with religious fervor rather than on any scientific basis. The control of carbon emissions does provide governments with another excuse to control economic activity - so perhaps the environmentalists are just useful idiots who benefit those intent on taking away our freedom.

The most alarming thing about this problem is that the worst case scenarios that our mathematical modeler explains would demand action beyond CO2 reduction. I work with computer models and have seen how iterative assumptions that smooth the data can greatly distort outcomes.
There appears to be a tremendous lag in CO2 concentrations and emissions. We could go back to the dark ages economically and still not reduce emissions enough to steer the CO2 effect for 10-20 years. (again dependent upon assumptions in models that are difficult to prove or disprove)
If warming were to accelerate dramatically and pose catastrophic scenarios that were 2-3 years away wouldn't we want to reach into the toolbox and try an albedo solution?
If the only tool in our toolbox was to reduce emissions and if that tool doesn't have enough torque to turn the screw then we could be screwed.

EXHASPERATED:
Maybe you want to make a counterpoint? I'm not sure taking shots at Aiyer is useful in anyway.
Aiyar is not denying Global Warming - he is simply suggesting greater creativity rather than relying only on emission reductions.

So, you think India is going to suffer most of the consequences..hmmm how did you figure that?
I would be interested in understanding that.

And Oh, next time you pop open a soda can for breakfast (and lunch, snack and dinner) just try to think about the conseqences of your actions on the climate.

Environmental crisis beckons us not to divorce knowledge from ethics.

Ummm... yeh, maybe we can get around the problem of the extra heat generated by the CO2, but our bodies cannot use the CO2, we need O2

frank collins

The science is against your claims, for example ice core data from glaciers.

the roman grape anecdote is hardly concrete data (what level of production & quality was acceptable to them, how scientific is this test, etc.)

the greenland claim is absurd: the vikings discovered the warmer iceland and colder greenland and named them misleadingly to promote frontier settlement Look it up.

the Little Ice Age ended in the middle ages based on scientific consensus

You seem to have a personal problem w/ liberals that transcends facts (see your prius rant)

Like i said, the credible science is against u, and your belligerent and ignorant comments do little to support your opinion.

P.S. -- America is supposed to cut back TOGETHER w/ other industrialized countries b/c we create a hugely disproportionate amount of carbon emissions and can afford it

Global warming is a proven fact. Look at the melting glaciers and ice caps. Look at the CO2 content in the atmosphere, now 30 percent higher than levels ever seen in the last 16 million years. Those who deny this reality will have a heavy burden of guilt to bear as things get worse, but then it will be too late. Global warming isn't a sin. Denying reality is.

"Might one day enable us," "I have no idea if this might work," "may come from discoveries in an unrelated area."

We can't bet the future of the planet on might, maybe, could. We need WILL. Right now, curbing emissions is the only certain way to slow global warming.

Certainly we need much more R&D funding than our myopic governments are currently allocating. And if someone makes a breakthrough discovery someday I'll cheer. But given where we are now (about 10 years away from the tipping point) we need to take the only action we know will work.

The facts regarding Global warming have been published over and over in journals such as "Science" and "Nature", in reports to the UN, and in reports to US government (which were watered-down, against the wishes of all the people who did the work).

We scientists are getting pretty tired of laymen second guessing our work when they know nothing about it and can't even read the literature.

The specfic issue I brought up about the numerical methods used to solve the highly non-linear stiff systems of partial differential equations used in climate models are known to experts in numerical analysis, and are one of the most challenging problems we face.

The tradeoff involves the amount of computer time available to simulate a model. The more computer time we have available, the better we can follow "fast transients" and rapidly changing behavior in general. We use limiting and smoothing techniques to make the computation time required managable, and we are always limited on how small a grid we can use and how small timesteps we can use by the amount of computer time available.

As faster and more powerful computers become available we are able to reduce our grid size and time-steps, and therefore able to get more detail on rapidly changing behavior.

As we get more resolution in both time and space, the results consistently point in the direction of more risk of dangerous changes in our climate and weather patterns, and less time available to do something about it.

If you went to every Doctor you could find, and they all told you that you had Cancer, what would you do?

We face a similar problem on a global scale with global warming. Think of it as the earth having lung cancer, that it needs to quit smoking, and that it will need surgery and chemo to even have a chance to live. That puts things in the right perspective.

Global warming is a danger to human existance.
We need to take immediate strong action to survive as a species.

The facts regarding Global warming have been published over and over in journals such as "Science" and "Nature", in reports to the UN, and in reports to US government (which were watered-down, against the wishes of all the people who did the work).

We scientists are getting pretty tired of laymen second guessing our work when they know nothing about it and can't even read the literature.

The specfic issue I brought up about the numerical methods used to solve the highly non-linear stiff systems of partial differential equations used in climate models are known to experts in numerical analysis, and are one of the most challenging problems we face.

The tradeoff involves the amount of computer time available to simulate a model. The more computer time we have available, the better we can follow "fast transients" and rapidly changing behavior in general. We use limiting and smoothing techniques to make the computation time required managable, and we are always limited on how small a grid we can use and how small timesteps we can use by the amount of computer time available.

As faster and more powerful computers become available we are able to reduce our grid size and time-steps, and therefore able to get more detail on rapidly changing behavior.

As we get more resolution in both time and space, the results consistently point in the direction of more risk of dangerous changes in our climate and weather patterns, and less time available to do something about it.

If you went to every Doctor you could find, and they all told you that you had Cancer, what would you do?

We face a similar problem on a global scale with global warming. Think of it as the earth having lung cancer, that it needs to quit smoking, and that it will need surgery and chemo to even have a chance to live. That puts things in the right perspective.

Global warming is a danger to human existance.
We need to take immediate strong action to survive as a species.

hey SCIENTIST - where are your facts boy.

i still cant see what is wrong with the words i put the **'s in so that it would pass.

part 5:
trying it again and again and again.
let me add the darling of the l**ney left the pri**s. you are all so sm*g to get 35 miles per gallon, lots of cars get that too, but the pri**s.
how do they make them. well they mine in canada. the place is bad because mining is so destructive to the environment that nasa uses the place in canada to test off world rovers for harsh conditions. that takes energy. then the truck - yes dir**y trucks - to ships where they waste more energy to put it on ships. they are not sailing ships - they are dir**y nas**y ships that you le**tists hate and they ship it to - EUROPE. then they have to unload it and truck it to the plants in eastern europe where it is smelted and they dont care about polution standards, they just need the work. then it is trucked - those dirty trucks again - or maybe a dirty train - to the shipyards where dirty ships carry it to japan. now japan unloads it and then reloads it and sends it to china, korea or the likes. there it is smelted and formed into component parts. then it is shipped and delivered to japan. yes they have to unload it so they can say it was made in japan. then it is put into the manfacturing process because they japanese want to sell it at the highest possbile price to their companies in America and not show a taxable profit in America. then it is shipped to America, unloaded, trucked, and finally put into you car, where you can pretend that none of that happened and you are saving the world.

part 4:
hey how do we measure global temps? there are sites with temp measuring devices, except there is a problem. a site that was once in an open field without anything or anyone around is now sitting next to a paved tennis court - yes it measures hotter now. think it might have anything to do with reflected heat? or the devides that are not in the middle of a parking lot, or next to a busy highway. the issue became so important and the data so corrupt they have blocked the map where they are located so people can see for themselves, but there are plenty of sites around that were downloaded before the site was locked.
so is there global warming - who knows. is it exists did man do it NO!
and koyoto - why is America the only country that is supposed to cut back? africia, china, russia, india - no limits. and keep this in mind - America does not set limits but is producing less polution that it used to but America is bad. the EU set limits, everyone is happy, and then it produces more polution than it did before it set those limits - no one says anything except how the EU set limits and America wont.

part 3:
REMEMBER GREENLAND - it was green when they found it. they could grow crops and feed themselves. now it takes heavy equipment to break through the ice to see the burial sites of people who lives and farmed there. think those people needed heavy 20th century industrial equipment to bury them in 1300? well it must not be as warm as it was then.
LETS TALK ABOUT GRAPES. the growing season for grapes for england is a few months. when the romans were there the growing season was all year around. how do we know that? the romans liked wine and the growing seasons for grapes was important to them, so they wrote about it.
and what would be wrong with greenland once again being green and available for planting of crops? its a sheet of ice now. more fresh clean water would be a good thing.
the earth changes daily and it will continue to do so.

part 2:
we are now coming out of the little ice age. it went from 1450 to 1900. but that has nothing to do with people. did you know that mars and even pluto are getting warmer, did people and their hummers do that too? no its part of the natural cycle.
how about polar bears. i love the ones about dying polar bears. everyone knows that polar bears never got old, did not attack each other, did not get attacked by killer whales, and lived forever until man created global warming. NOT!

lets c if i can post it in parts.
part 1
there is no proof of global warming that we are responsible for.
its not a sin to say to think there is man made global warming, its dumb.
but nice issue - u will not know for another 80 years if you are right and when you find out that your are not, that its not getting warmer, outside the normal cycle, you will claim that you are all you sky is falling friends, corrected the problem.

why if you try to make specific points does the site tell you they have to look at it first before they post it?
like all lefties they fear facts.

dont say he is wrong or they block u

Global warming is extremely dangerous and we must act now.

Scientists are trained to be conservative in what we say, we try our best not to hype or overstate our results, and we require a very high standard of proof with lots of evidence to back it up before we accept a theory as our best current understanding of how a physical system works.

The danger to humanity due to the effects of man made polution on global climate, especially CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is for real.

If anything the risks have been strongly understated and the time frame we have to act in to save ourselves is shorter, not longer, than what is commonly reported in the press.

We can't afford to bet on miracles.

We need to take action now.

Global warming is extremely dangerous and we must act now.

Scientists are trained to be conservative in what we say, we try our best not to hype or overstate our results, and we require a very high standard of proof with lots of evidence to back it up before we accept a theory as our best current understanding of how a physical system works.

The danger to humanity due to the effects of man made polution on global climate, especially CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is for real.

If anything the risks have been strongly understated and the time frame we have to act in to save ourselves is shorter, not longer, than what is commonly reported in the press.

We can't afford to bet on miracles.

We need to take action now.

As a scientist deeply familiar with the mathematics behind models of global warming, and the numerical methods used to solve such mathematical models, I'm concerned that the risk we face may be significantly higher than has been reported in the press.

Without boring everyone with the details, when you write a computer code to solve these kind of systems, almost universally these codes contain "limiting", "dampening", and "smoothing" algorithms, that can mask extreme or extremely quickly changing behavior. Without such techniques, the programs would not converge to a solution or would take forever to run.

The upshot of all this is that when you have something as "non-linear" and "stiff" as climate change, its very easy to underestimate how quickly things can go bad.

If anything, global warming is more dangerous than has been reported, not less, and we probably have less time to respond to it than is commonly believed, not more.

Scott Barrett’s research and development proposal of "oops, I miscalculated by a hundredth of a degree in controlling my geo-engineering experiment and unfortunately the usability of the earth has been decreased by 500 years.

Sorry!

I'm surprised at the credibility given to this intellectually bankrupt form of thought. There is a very honest discussion to be had about whether preparing for global warming, rather than trying to stop it outright, is the correct solution. But to think that we can "tune the Earth's climate like a thermostat" is just beyond any sanity.

I'm not sure what the point is of questioning whether carbon emissions are "original sin", the comparison seems tortured at best. The more important issue is cultivating a political climate in which alternative energy sources and lifestyles are given as much or more consideration than the current power and economic structures which vastly favor increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

In all, it is an open question whether reducing our carbon footprint could actually reverse warming, but the process of trying would revolutionize the energy industry and quite possibly the means of economic development. The current powers know this and it is their main, although silent, objection to combating global warming.

Carbon reduction will probably slow the warming if it is not too late. Even without global warming carbon reduction would be beneficial for the health of the planet and all of us who live here. Looking for new technological and scientific approaches is a no brainer, however we need to address the problem now and not wait for something to just magically be developed. Carbon reduction may hurt economic and industrial growth in the short term and maybe that is what people are worried about. Don't worry because the economy can and will recover much quicker than the effect of run away global warming. It is good to remember that a carbon run economy is not very intelligent anyway because it is unsustainable not to mention all of it's destructive side effects. There has been no real action or progress on finding a solution to replace the carbon based economy. It's been good sounding rhetoric followed by foot dragging and sabotage. The problem I have with waiting around for new scientific solutions is that the industries that produce the most carbon seem to worship profits and growth over health. They seem quite short sighted and will avoid even temporary delays in growth and profit. Voluntary motivation to find solutions is a smoke screen for literally letting business go on as usual. Forcing carbon reduction just might encourage them to take time out and look for a new sustainable source of fuel that will benefit all of us.

Even if we think of civilization's emissions of greenhouse gases as a "perturbation" rather than a "sin", there are good reasons to reduce that perturbation. Coal and oil are nonrenewable resources which pollute in a number of ways, so reducing their use through conservation and cleaner alternatives will improve the environment beyond the climate impact, and may save money in the long run. Science magazine had an article in November about ways to counteract global warming; it was pointed out that high CO2 concentrations can hurt ecologically important marine organisms such as corals even aside from the climate effects. Finally, humanity's tinkering with the chemistry of the atmosphere is like a giant experiment with an uncertain and potentially frightening outcome. Trying to fight global warming by experimenting with the Earth's albedo or other methods gives us even more opportunities to change the climate and biosphere in ways we do not totally understand and may not like.

WHY does the Post give space to an intellectually dishonest polluter-apologist like you?

You sir, are an apologist for those who want to personally benefit financially despite the reality of your actions CAUSING global warming and the slow death of life on earth.

You're parsing words because you fear losing money, HAVING TO CHANGE, and being recognized as the killers of the earth...for a few bucks..and a career, perhaps? POLLUTING IS A SIN THAT KILLS HUMANS AND THE EARTH ITSELF.

And you're MAKING IT WORSE by dragging the stinking, D.O.A red herring of bad science PROPAGANDA across the path of progress and solutions: "Geo engineering" !?! There is NO science of geo-engineering - just people who want to make money attaching to term to boondoggle projects, gather campaign contributions from those wanting to sell such garbage to government and take our tax dollars as payment for their nonsense.

When you start thinking you can control nature bad things happen EVERY TIME:

Dams in rivers? Cheap electricity, and extinction of the salmon.

Bio-engineered corn? Winds up the the food supply.

Bio-engineered crops "safe" from cross pollination? The pollen blows on the wind and contaminates surrounding fields miles away.

Alter a flood plain and the moth of a river so you can build on it? You get New Orleans post "Katrina".

Russia moves a river and dries up an entire sea, causing the destruction of an entire region's economy and causing a dustbowl and salt-field of hundrends of square miles, and respiratory disease. and death for the inhabitants of the area.

Now you want to scatter tons of iron on the sea TO SPUR ALGAE BLOOMS??? (BTW - what happens when the oxygen levels drop from the algae bloom (aka RED TIDE) and all life in the zone you've polluted ("geo engineered") is dead?

You want to blast particles into the atmosphere to block the sun??? But you don't remember the failed crops and famine in impoverished areas after Mount Piniatubo erupted and sent a cloud of particles around the globe?

Right. You forgot about that. Conveniently.

How are you going to actually test these ideas before you deploy them? OOOOH a computer MODEL? Right let's trust the lives of our children to a computer MODEL!?!

God knows whatever other untested schemes you want to promote ...all so you can go on polluting and making a buck?

NO THANKS.

POLLUTERS ARE SINNERS NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY GO TO THE TEMPLE, CHURCH, MOSQUE, OR UNIVERSITY LABORATORY.

I agree with Swami that many scientific discoveries are serendipitous. However, as we have often seen, the process of creating a sense of urgency, of gaining a critical mass of experts (in various fields from science to economics to philosophy...) thinking about a problem, can be an impetus to serendipitous as well as more deliberate/calculated outcomes.

Whether the situation is due to "original sin" is moot. What matters is that if global warming is fact, we take measures to alleviate it as much as possible. If it does turn out (for some reason quite unimaginable just now) that all the current signs of global warming are just some minor hiccough in the system, the costs of the research and development and resources allocated to global warming will certainly have furthered our knowledge of our ecosystem and produced spinoffs just as space exploration has done. On the other hand, the opportunity cost of finding out too late that global warming is real and occurring (and that may have happened already) is likely to be much greater.

The past century has certainly shown that human ingenuity can solve many problems. However, none of them has been of the magnitude of the earth itself, or required a degree of cooperation from all its nations, as the global warming scenario may yet require. If its effects were not so subtle or distant, (even with the currently melting glaciers and ice sheets), and the crisis presented a bolder face such as the immediacy of war, or a comet coming towards us as in some cinematic scenario, humanity would, perhaps, unite with much greater resolve and urgency to tackle it.