Antarctica is a continent. A continent is a land mass, fyi. About 98% of Antarctica is covered in ice upwards of 1 mile in thickness. It is NOT displacing seawater, it is sitting on the land mass of Antarctica. Projections indicate that if this ice were to melt sea levels could rise as much as 200 feet. Don't believe me? That's ok, find any educated person you trust and ask them, they will agree.

Sean:

"Just out of curiosity, why was there no mention of the 650 scientists who just signed on to say that global warming is NOT man made?"

Good question, there is no doubt that great leaps in scientific understanding have been brought to the forefront of the scientific community by minority groups facing derision from the majority. It remains to be seen here. So far the overwhelming consensus is that it is, and these 650 among others are incorrect in their assessment of the evidence, but that could be wrong. It remains to be seen.

"1) If global warming was indeed man made, then why are we not seeing average temperatures rising at disproportionately higher rates in certain places like Los Angeles and Beijing, where there is a lot more polution?"
I wish I knew, my sense is that it is explainable through models and systems studies of climate and weather patterns, but I have no knowledge of these areas of science, pure speculation on my part.

"2) Why would CO2 be bad for the environment, when plants thrive off of CO2?"

There are many factors that explain why excess CO2 is "bad" as you say.
Plants sequester carbon from the air and incorporate it into their structure, this is true. But not all plants are created equal. Trees, which are being clearcut at an ever increasingly alarming rate, are our biggest helpers when it comes to carbon sequestration. We are shooting ourselves in the foot so to speak by clearcutting in the amazon and africa and the upper northwestern united states and canada. Much of this stems from poverty and hunger which another commentor said we should deal with first, I say they are connected and there are enough of us on this planet to deal with more than one issue at a time.anyway....
CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas because it transmits visible light but absorbs infra red and near infrared wavelengths, which means it warms up. Increases in the atmospheric levels of CO2, which are not being properly offset by plant carbon sequestration, lead to a gradual change in climate patterns. The intricacies and variances in the change of climate of different areas is not something completely understood, but research is ongoing. Some areas are warming, some are cooling, some are experiencing drought, others flood, and extreme versions of common weather patterns as well. I wish I knew more about it, but I am a layman when it comes to this.

The National Hurricane Center has been completely off the last couple years.

The ice age ended without factories and SUVs plus Greenland was named that because at the time it was green.

Most scientists believe in evolution.

Nature produces more CO2 than humans do and it only makes up a fraction of the gasses in our atmosphere.

We're trusting in (often corrected) computer models to reach decisions that will crush our economy why??

Let's work on giving the world good water and end starvation first.

It was noted in the recent issue of the Cincinnati Enquirer that the average temperature in Cincinnati has risen 2° in the past 8 years.

Two degrees seems like a huge number. From all the scientific data I’ve read, a single degree around the globe may effect our food stock, cause ice melts, cause more intense storms, etc. etc.

I don’t want to be an alarmist – no one ever listens to alarmists. As someone who’s always been a little green, I consider myself a pragmatist. People will listen to pragmatists for hours.

This past year as I’ve researched reasons for bird habitat loss, (Audubon Watchlist 2007 notes that 25% of U.S. bird species are diminishing or rare) I’ve felt myself becoming either greener or a pragmatist with a capital P!

The 2° number made me think of the top ten consequences of global warming.

1. 2° can separate the Chinese from their main water supply. (Tibetan glaciers).

2. 2° can separate birds from their insect feed stocks that hatched before the birds arrived.

3. 2° can separate Miami and New York City residents that can and can’t swim.

4. 2° can make beaches in Maine more fun.

5. 2° can make Michigan’s Upper Peninsula a major corn producing area.

6. 2° can make Iowa look a lot like Arizona – without all the cool mountains.

7. 2° can make many rivers dependant on snowfalls become a trickle. Interestingly this reduces hydropower and increases the need for carbon power.

8. 2° can make downtown LA the world’s most productive squid fishery.

9. 2° means hurricanes don’t stop in Alabama anymore.

10. 2° means you should do all you can to help all the things you love and cherish.

Also, there seems to be a few people here that may be able to answer these questions...

1) If global warming was indeed man made, then why are we not seeing average temperatures rising at disproportionately higher rates in certain places like Los Angeles and Beijing, where there is a lot more polution?

2) Why would CO2 be bad for the environment, when plants thrive off of CO2?

CNN will not print this.

Please read this and realize there are many scientists throughtout the world who disagree.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #