Gas Prices Changing the Landscape

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Denying human involvement helps everyone if human involvement has little to no impact on global warming by allowing better/more efficient use of resources and allocation of human effort.

The problem here is that many conservatives are denying not only human involvement in global warming, but global warming entirely. This has been, by and large, the Bush administration's tact as far as I've seen. They have effectively tabled any talk on global warming at all for the past eight years. I think that this is harmful.
Furthermore, though I'll agree that all the evidence is not in as to what's causing the Earth to warm, I think it's important that we realize that human involvement is a distinct possibility. I cannot prove that humans cause global warming, but does that mean that we should assume that they aren't? In the same way, I can't prove that the terrorists are going to hijack another airplane, but I still think that airport security is a fairly good idea in general.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Humans are certainly producing CO2 in addition to what is naturally produced. What percentage of total world CO2 production humans are responsible for is debatable, depending on the study and sources viewed.


True to a point. If you look at the ice core records mentioned earlier, you'll see temperature and CO2 levels peak and then drop suddenly, so it can change rather rapidly in either direction.

All true.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

As even the Wikipedia "global Warming" entry states: "...carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%..." A margin of error like that doesn't instill a lot of confidence in an understanding of the role of CO2 (and other factors) in global temperatures. Combine that with the fraction of global CO2 production humans are responsible for, and the percentage of CO2 based global warming humans are responsible for is pretty small.

There's no question about that. The question is whether or not it's significant enough to affect natural resources and weather patterns. The general scientific consensus seems to be, currently, that global warming can be very small and still have a fairly important impact on our weather. So the question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not "pretty small" is enough. And though the results are still far from certain, I'd rather be safe than sorry, especially if it means fairly minor things like regulating large corporations or ratifying the Kyoto protocols.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Looking at the ice core samples, it would seem that, humans or no, the globe should be nearing the peak of a warming trend (although it's a bit cool compared to the othe cyclical historical peaks). Whether we're approaching the apex, starting to come down, etc could be up in the air (literally and figuratively).

The "nearing", however, is over a period of a few thousand years. An increase over a few hundred could be a problem. If humans are causing the global warming of the past few hundred years, we are giving nature a lot less time to adapt.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

I don't see how the previous statements, therefore, equal this result. I guess my questions would be: if humans never existed, what would the temperature be today? In 100 years? What is the correct global temperature? Exactly how much of today's current warming is from natural systems, and how much is from human intervention? Could humanity's relatively small contributions to overall atmospherics be responsible for the lion's share of global climate change?

The current scienific consensus seems to be that humans probably have caused some global warming. The exact figures vary wildly. And unfortunately, it's become politicized at this point such that unbiased figures are fairly hard to come by.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

I think it's possible we are responsible for a small amount, but nothing major in the big scheme of things.

How much is small? How small does it have to be to harm us?

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

The fact that many scientists disagree with the theory of human caused global warming should give pause to everyone.

From what I've seen, the vast majority of scientists think that controlling greenhouse gases is a serious issue. I think that many get asked questions like whether or not they think that humans have caused the majority of global warming in recent times. That's debatable between scientists, but I think that the consensus on what we need to do in the future is pretty clear to them.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

It's not like relativity or germ theory, which, while technically theories, are actually accepted by "scientific consensus".

"Theory" has a different definition in scientific circles.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Seems rather contradictory to your previous assertion that it's "quite plausible".

I don't think so. If you hear banging, and you go outside and your mailbox is broken and there's a kid there with a baseball bat, you can't PROVE that he did it. However, the evidence is pretty strong.

I'm not going to pretend that I can prove that humans have caused global warming using the statistics currently available. However, scientists have shown a strong correlation between human greenhouse gas output and the temperature. It could be a coincidence, but the kid with the baseball bat could also be a coincidence.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

I don't think you can really go this route. As presented, either global warming is a major issue with severe consequences to humanity that only drastic action will stop, or it's not a major issue (either natural or beneficial) which can be ignored. While some might consider this a false dichotomy fallacy, it seems fairly accurate to me. If CO2 is driving global climate change, and this change is as bad as predicted by supporters, then something tepid like emission standards isn't going to cut it...unless you're talking DRASTIC cuts in emissions globally (as opposed to, say, CAFE changes for vehicles in the US).

That is exactly a false dichotomy fallacy. First, very few people think that global warming is a "major issue with severe consequences to humanity that only drastic action will stop". Most think that it has the potential to become a major issue, but it can be averted with very reasonable precautions now. In other words, either we pass fairly light restrictions on emissions now, or we leave our children a much more serious problem.

Furthermore, even if it's not a major issue, that doesn't mean it should be ignored. There aren't many murders in the U.S., but that doesn't mean the police should say "too bad". It's a fairly new issue that can be kept entirely under control. The doomsday projections only come into play if we keep our current course of action over many years. (For the most part. There are, as always, radical projections).

And lastly, global warming isn't an all-or-nothing thing. Even if we do mess up and warm the Earth enough to cause weather changes, it would be much better if we change things a little bit than if we change them a lot. So even if some emissions standards won't reduce CO2 enough to avert global warming, implementing them will at least lessen any crisis which comes.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

The same goes for things like traffic management in cities. This site www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm96.htm has some excellent examples of fairly strict methods to control traffic in cites (as well as some more mundane ones), here used for congestion purposes but also proposed to get cars off the road for CO2 emissions. Fuel in Europe is taxed very heavily to discourage use, just as Democrats are pushing for a gas tax increase in the US.

I think the CO2 emissions thing is a secondary objective, and traffic management is the primary concern.

I'm not familiar with the current state of politicians and gas taxes. I suspect that Democrats have abandoned this platform since gas prices have become so high, as it's a huge issue for so many Americans.

I think emissions restrictions on automotive companies are more effective, and don't have the same negative side effects on our economy, but I'm not very knowledgeable about gas taxes.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Considering people get just about everything from corporations, any restrictions on them results in restrictions on society.

To an extent. I don't really think it's a big deal if, when I go to a car dealership, the average gas mileage of the cars I look at is restricted. I suppose that's restricting my freedoms, but in a very, very minor way.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

You're certainly willing to accept less freedom if you want, but I'm not terribly excited on restrictions on my choices, especially not for something as tenuous as potential problems from theoretical contributions to global warming.

"Tenuous" is hardly the right word for something backed by so many scientists. Look at it from the other way, I'm willing to accept an insignificant reduction in freedoms to help alleviate a problem which could destroy humanity.

And I'm very much for freedoms, I just don't think that this qualifies as "less freedom." Handgun bans qualify as "less freedom," as does allowing the government to tap phone lines. Forcing cars to run at a minimum level of efficiently, thereby saving the consumer money, is hardly an issue at this point. For me, at least.

[Teme]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Looking at the ice core samples, it would seem that, humans or no, the globe should be nearing the peak of a warming trend (although it's a bit cool compared to the othe cyclical historical peaks). Whether we're approaching the apex, starting to come down, etc could be up in the air (literally and figuratively).

Oh, you didn't look close enough, then. Unless you mean nearing as in passed 5000 years ago... (You might want to check out "Holocene climatic optimum" and "Neoglacial").

In other words, according to physical, cosmic, solar, planetary and climatological 'constants', the globe should be on it's merry way to the next Glacial Maximum. But it's not, as we all can attest. The only thing not constant since times past is the GHGs people put in the atmosphere. That doesn't make you go "Hmmm..."?

I do understand that GW is a problem that can't be solved by Friedmanian methods, and thus it will be denounced by those who won't accept reality when it clashes with their world view. It just would be more honest to admit the purely political basis of this 'scepticism' or outright denial.

[Grimaldi]

Too many responses! Must shorten to meet forum limits!

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

The problem here is that many conservatives are denying...global warming entirely. This has been...the Bush administration's tact as far as I've seen.

I think part of the problem here stems from the term "global warming" being confused in use, being used to refer to the temperature of the world increasing in general sometimes, and through human intervention in others. There are some scientists (political affiliation irrelevant) that are skeptical of any global warming trend, in the sense that average temperature changes based over the course of a few decades-a century are insufficient to determine actual long-term trends.

As for Bush...he's been politically vague on the subject, but has not denied global warming. Global warming believers may say he isn't genuine, or his plans are inadequate, but saying he has denied global warming is false. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange
Here he's talking about plans for CO2 control...not the way the UN and Kyoto want, but still talking the same general goals for the same reason.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

In the same way, I can't prove that the terrorists are going to hijack another airplane, but I still think that airport security is a fairly good idea in general.

The significant difference being that no one doubts terrorist activity on planes has occurred in the past, is detrimental to society and can be controlled with relatively minor expense.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

"Theory" has a different definition in scientific circles.

Please explain how I misapplied the scientific definition of "theory".

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

That is exactly a false dichotomy fallacy. First, very few people think that global warming is a "major issue with severe consequences to humanity that only drastic action will stop". Most think that it has the potential to become a major issue, but it can be averted with very reasonable precautions now. In other words, either we pass fairly light restrictions on emissions now, or we leave our children a much more serious problem.

If you look at the predictions made regarding no action on global warming, the ramifications are pretty severe (droughts and famine, flooding of coastal areas, spread of disease, all of the above pressures leading to war and the collapse of civilization, etc). Saying these will occur unless changes are made immediately seems, to me, to meet the first part of my statement: "major issue with severe consequences to humanity"

Now, if as you state above, human CO2 emissions (and other greenhouse gasses we emit) are responsible for global warming, and even small amounts can be responsible, then the only real solution is to go to pre-industrial levels of CO2 emissions. Of course, no one is suggesting that at this point...but why not? Either they realize no one would support something so drastic, they are trying to reach the goal incrementally, or human CO2 emissions are fine to some undetermined point, and we're playing with fire on the subject.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

I guess that USA would have responded even if Kuwait did not have had oil, but slower and to a lesser degree. For comparison, see the much less muscular response by USA to the Indonesian invasion of Eastern Timor just after the latter had declared independence from Portugal. The countries are about the same size also.

You'll note in my explanation for my thoughts regarding US intervention in Kuwait, I specifically mentioned very recent military activities and a UN recognized sovereign nation. I think we can all agree the world political landscape in 1975 (East Timor's invasion) was dramatically different than 1991, and East Timor was not a recognized, independent nation, and the recognized sovereign nation (Portugal) didn't care.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Various statements regarding energy costs and living within reasonable expectations based on income

I have no problem with current high gas prices in the US. Scratch that...it sucks and I don't like it, but I accept it as a natural consequence of global activity on a commodity in a free market. It's bad for the economy and the nation, but it happens. The idea of the government artificially raising the price of energy (through taxes or the forced use of less efficient energy production methods) specifically to discourage use in the name of unproven problems is what makes me upset. I lived in Europe for 5 years, and while great in some regards, the high energy costs were unpleasant, artificial and unneccesary.

As for me personally, I'm an Army officer and make plenty of money, so I'm not actually in any financial problems. Sure, when interest rates went up I ended up paying a lot more on my mortgage than I had before, but I did choose to live within my means, so it was only a hit on disposable income and not any necessities. My examples were only hypothetical.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

See, I live where gas costs 8.32 USD/gallon, so I do not feel your pain when you complain about higher gas prices.

Ah yes...the old "it sucks worse for me, so I don't feel any sympathy that things are getting worse for you". I guess I'd say I feel bad when anybody suffers something negative, regardless of how it affects me personally (schadenfreude aside, at times...). I wish you (and Europeans on the Continent) didn't have to pay such outrageous gas prices, the VAT tax, etc. I guess it's the price of your socialized system, but it still blows.

Originally Posted by Fechter1

Funny, that second graph seems to shpw a definitive relationship between athmospheric CO2 content (green line) and temperatures (blue line)...

There is definitely a correlation, but causation is yet to be established. Upon closer inspection, the CO2 level changes lag behind temperature changes. These delayed changes in CO2 levels are addressed in revised predictions based on things like ocean CO2 absorption and such, but it's still all hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Fechter1

Not saying that the world wouldn't have reacted, just that the reaction would likely not have involved US troops in the 6 figure range...

Which everyone but fencerchica seems to agree with (including myself, as I think I made clear by stating the global response would be less to some degree, but still sufficient to oust the Iraqis).

Originally Posted by Fechter1

Again, I don't believe that oil prices are the major cause of the downturn oin the housing market, but rather the shady and unscrupulous practices of some of the mortgage lenders. The problem was that people were buying houses that they couldn't really afford

The housing market, mortgage defaults and economic troubles brought on (or contributed to) rising oil prices all struck around the same time, so it's tough to really assign blame with 100% accuracy, but I think a plausible scenario is: economy is doing well, people buy bigger/better homes. This causes inflation in home prices. Inflation in home prices leads to higher demand for mortgages, and mortgage companies start looking for alternative ways to open loans to less-qualified people using higher risk loans. People take these loans, economy stalls due to energy prices, people start having financial difficulty and can't continue to afford high risk loan.

In this scenario, several issues arise that are at odds with your previous statement. First off, the characterization of mortgage lenders as "shady and unscrupulous" is unfair. It's not like lenders were forging documents or altering already signed papers. Banks lose money on mortgages that default (certainly if within a few years of signing) so the banks have nothing to gain by offering loans they know will default. You give customers a variety of mortgage options, including hybrid loans including adjustable rate options. Some people choose to take it...if the economy had stayed healthy, they would have done great. It didn't, and they didn't plan properly for that contingency, so they can't afford their payments. Sounds like the property buyer made a poor decision...no fault of the bank.

The second problem is, again, the statement that people were buying homes they couldn't afford. How far do we take that statement? When the Great Depression hit and people lost their homes, was it because they "couldn't afford them" when they purchased them years before? Granted, that situation was more severe, but we're talking about people losing their homes due to an economic downturn in the economy...where do we draw the line between poor investment choice and victim of larger-scale economic event?

Originally Posted by Fechter1

Personally, I think that $10/gallon gas might actually be good in the long run. Maybe then consumers can wake up and demand some real actions from the polititians who are either too afraid to effect some real change, or too deep in the pockets of those making a financial killing in the current climate (how many record quarterly and yearly profits have Exxon et al posted in recent years?).

This is the kind of extremism that I'm talking about. Screw the nation and hurt the people to force change to combat a questionable threat? Why is a business making profit always touted as a bad thing? Would you prefer the alternative?

Originally Posted by Fechter1

On that note, what's your gas mileage?

I can honestly say I don't know and don't care. I buy a vehicle to meet a specific purpose, in the case, the ability to transport a family of 6. I suppose I review maintenance and crash test results to ensure the vehicle is safe and reliable. To that end, I have a Honda Odyssey for the family and a Toyota Camry for commuting to work, although I may bike (sigh) to work once I get back from Iraq.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by Teme

Oh, you didn't look close enough, then. Unless you mean nearing as in passed 5000 years ago... (You might want to check out "Holocene climatic optimum" and "Neoglacial").

Let's do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoglacial

Obviously more detailed information can be gathered from the references and other research, but this is a good, general starting point.

Hmm. The question mark after "Holocene Optimum" on the diagram showing the period in question is certainly reassuring as to the certainty. I would appear that it is there because this is viewed as the climatic "optimum" because it's the highest observed temperature period in the epoch, so by default it is considered the "optimum", so the world is assumed to be starting its sharp downward trend in temperature. Looking at the reasoning for the effect (the Milankovitch Cycles) doesn't necessarily lend credit to the Holocene Optimum, but instead seems to indicate the warm period should have been earlier.

"Neoglacial" is pretty benign, although it, too, shows some uncertainty.

Originally Posted by Teme

In other words, according to physical, cosmic, solar, planetary and climatological 'constants', the globe should be on it's merry way to the next Glacial Maximum.

Your choice of terms leads me to believe you are referring to the Milankovitch cycles mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

You'll note that, while most scientists are in agreement that orbital changes have a strong impact on global climate, there are several "problems" listed that can not be reconciled with our current understanding of global climate change. This, of course, means it's difficult to determine where our climate should be going today, which is why you'll see a great deal of uncertainty in the links above regarding the Holocene Optimum and Neoglacial period.

Originally Posted by Teme

The only thing not constant since times past is the GHGs people put in the atmosphere. That doesn't make you go "Hmmm..."?

So, when the Holocene Optimum site says "This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about 2,000 years ago." are you implying that human influences 2000 years ago (or longer) were the cause? If so, is the only solution to global warming is to return to pre-humanity CO2 emission levels? Maybe another "constant" during this period is our incomplete understanding of global climate systems?

If not, when exactly did that warming switch from natural fluctuation to man-made?

Originally Posted by Teme

I do understand that GW is a problem that can't be solved by Friedmanian methods, and thus it will be denounced by those who won't accept reality when it clashes with their world view. It just would be more honest to admit the purely political basis of this 'scepticism' or outright denial.

Yes, if recent global warming is due to human intervention, there must be government intervention to prevent it. However, saying skeptics are motivated by political ideology to prevent greater government intervention in people's lives, while ignoring their scientific beliefs, is ridiculous. Who would honestly believe that man-made global warming is real, and will result in extreme global consequences if not dealt with, but fight against efforts to combat it, thereby dooming himself and his family to life in a potentially chaotic world, just to support a political viewpoint?

How about we reverse it, and say that many climatologists exaggerate findings on man-made global warming to continue to generate government and private grants for research to keep themselves employed? The environmentalist movement was losing power and membership, so is exaggerating the threat of manmade global warming to keep their power and revenue? Perhaps politically motivated people on the left, seeking to increase central government power, are exaggerating global warming data to get the very power you mention?

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

My example would be our participation in the Yugoslavian conflict, specifically kicking the Serbs out of Kosovo. No material gain, wide European contribution, no foreign superpower involved. This would be in contrast to, say, Chechnya, which is a similar situation, except a superpower is involved, so no one's willing to do anything about it.

Actually, I responded to your thoughts on the background of our Balkan intervention over on a different thread recently. I'd copy it here, but I suppose I should reluctantly resist the temptation to add to the thread drift (actually it was thread drift over there too, LOL). So let me link you over there instead:

Outsourcing Jobs

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

First off, the characterization of mortgage lenders as "shady and unscrupulous" is unfair. It's not like lenders were forging documents or altering already signed papers. Banks lose money on mortgages that default (certainly if within a few years of signing) so the banks have nothing to gain by offering loans they know will default. You give customers a variety of mortgage options, including hybrid loans including adjustable rate options. Some people choose to take it...if the economy had stayed healthy, they would have done great. It didn't, and they didn't plan properly for that contingency, so they can't afford their payments. Sounds like the property buyer made a poor decision...no fault of the bank.

I disagree, not only with your premise but also with the way you're categorizing the operators here. You appear to be looking at the way mortages work from a very old-fashioned perspective, and I think this is coloring the way you think that the responsibility for the subprime crisis falls.

Back in the day (or presently, if you bank and borrow with a credit union, as I do) your mortage was the property of your bank and yes, they did have a vested interest in whether or not you were biting off more than you could chew, because they didn't want to see the mortgage they were holding go into default. Today, most mortgages are handled by brokers, who slice and dice them into little securities before dispersing them throughout the stock market, to be unquestioningly rated "AAA" by such upstanding organizations as Moody's. It's important to understand that in most cases there is no single holder of this mortgage anymore, and certainly it's not generally a bank. The holding of the bag is dispersed among the pool of investors, and not only is the accountability thread largely lost but also the ability of the homeowner to walk in and renegotiate with a single entity is also, if not reduced, then at least severely complicated.

My point with this preceding explanation was to show why mortage brokers no longer care (or at least no longer cared until recently) whether their customers were signing reasonable mortages. This being the case, the brokers had every reason to want to sell as many mortages as possible for as much money as possible. To that end, there was absolutely a VERY GREAT DEAL of lying done to customers, especially to customers in the undereducated and more vulnerable segment of the market that inclined towards subprime mortgages. For months on NPR I've been hearing the stories of individuals and groups who were point-blank lied to by their mortgage brokers on such basic items such as when their interest rates would change, whether they could renegotiate their mortages, and what the housing market trends were. Another infamous practice of unscrupulous brokers was to out and out falsify the incomes of their "clients", often without the client even knowing it had been done, in order to qualify them for an even more outrageous subprime mortgage.

Now, if you or I were sitting across a desk from a mortage broker, I think it's safe to say we'd know to do cautious things like reading everything carefully before signing; retaining an attorney to check over all the documentation; carefully evaluating our long-term ability to live up to the loan's terms, especially in the event of unforseen hardships; etc, and we'd be able to do all that with minimal help from the mortage broker and perhaps even despite positive attempts by them to mislead us. But not everyone has the privileges we do, in terms of being an educated and suspicious customer, and they fall back on trusting the brokers. It's all very well to say caveat emptor, but not everyone is in a position to fend off the jackals all by themselves, and it's not right to deny the proof that exploitation occured.

[jeff]

I'll contribute to the mortgage thread drift a little! I would amend fencerchica's description in her post above this to append 'and banks' to 'mortgage brokers'. Many shady loans came from banks, the very institutions that once-upon-a-time required mortgage applicants demonstrate that they had assets and income sufficient to pay off the note.

That's because in the old days, as fencerchica said, the same institution that originated the loan carried it on its books, and was on the hook if the borrower defaulted. Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) made it possible to take big collections of loans, aggregate them into a negotiable instrument, and then sell them in a manner similar to a bond or any other debt instrument. At that level, it's really not bad in itself.

The problem came about because the sales side - who originates a loan - is compensated for writing new paper (the loan), and not penalized if the note defaults a few years down the road. Also because rating agencies completely fell down on the job, and that's partially because they didn't even understand them. MBS calculations are incredibly complicated, so the price and yield calculation might as well be black magic, and they just rubber stamped the AAA ratings they were told. Finally, the lowered interest rates from the Fed helped fuel the frenzy for home buying, and we had a classic bubble. Buy the house now with nothing down, and flip it a few months later for double your money. Not everyone was a speculator, but speculation and low interest rates drove up house prices and gave the illusion the balloon would keep rising.

Not that any of this is really new. In the 1970s (IIRC), there were massive loan defaults by Latin American countries that had to be eaten by the major banks. The people who originated the megabucks loans had collected their bonuses and moved on, and the people who sold the repackaged debt did the same. Only the shareholders and people who bought the debt were deep in the hole.

[Fencergrl]

Wow... we used a mortgage broker, but it's quite different in Canada. They search amongst banks and credit unions for the best rates. They get paid a percentage by the bank or credit union (who make a lot of money from mortgages & loans). It just saved us the legwork and negotiating. As well, it gave us someone to discuss our lending needs with that understood what was available. At the time, our credit union couldn't match the rate. They let us know often they wanted our mortgage, whenever we renegotiated. The other bank was able to hang on to it until we paid it off.

Yes, there are independent mortgage investors available, but they are down the food chain in 3rd and 4th mortgages. It is understood that they are high risk, high interest short term loans. Most people don't even know they exist, as usually people go through the bank/ credit union for mortgages and they only go as far as a second.

I wondered what happen in your country. I assumed mortgages were the same in both countries.

Edit: When the holder of our first mortgage no longer was a local bank, they kept our mortgage and managed it from their head office. When the rest of their banking merged with another bank, our mortgage was still held with the original bank. They were on the mortgage agreement until we retired the mortgage. I understood it to be a legal agreement that couldn't get out of or sell without our agreement.

[Teme]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Your choice of terms leads me to believe you are referring to the Milankovitch cycles mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Nope. I was referring to all known factors in climate. Milankovitch cycles are only one. We have the physical properties of atmospheric gases, albedo, solar radiation, sunspots and lots of others.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

So, when the Holocene Optimum site says "This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about 2,000 years ago." are you implying that human influences 2000 years ago (or longer) were the cause?

No. I'm implying we passed the optimum instead of nearing it. That is all.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

If not, when exactly did that warming switch from natural fluctuation to man-made?

I'd venture a guess that when we started pumping CO2 and other GHGs to atmosphere.
See, everything can be measured and observed, and 'extra' CO2 is the only thing that remains when every other factor has failed to explain the current warming. And, not completely coincidentally, CO2 does indeed absorb IR radiation (heat) and emit it to surroundings (atmosphere).
If we go just by the laws of physic, adding CO2 to atmosphere exposed to heat (originating from sun, reflected by globe) must warm up the atmosphere. Which leaves us with one explanation, which happens to be even plausible.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Who would honestly believe that man-made global warming is real, and will result in extreme global consequences if not dealt with, but fight against efforts to combat it, thereby dooming himself and his family to life in a potentially chaotic world, just to support a political viewpoint?

You got it wrong here. The point was denying man-made global warming and/or it's consequences in order not to give up a political viewpoint. A nuance that makes a big difference.
Humans are exceptional in their ability to solve cognitive dissonance by redefining reality.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

How about we reverse it, and say that many climatologists exaggerate findings on man-made global warming to continue to generate government and private grants for research to keep themselves employed?

If they were in it for the money, one would expect them to exaggerate the uncertainty (pretty much like you do here ), not the dire consequences. Of course, most scientific meetings nowadays seem to end up reflecting the fact that scientist feel themselves to be too conservative in their estimations and communications.
Now, if you want to make real money in climatology, you go to work for oil companies -- they have the best climate models money can buy, since knowing exactly what the climate was like in 50 million years ago tells them where the crude is today. The oddest thing is, of course, that the companies pay the hacks (of secondary smoke and CFC fame) for raising uncertainty instead of refuting the academic climate models with their models. All it would take is one article in scientific journal.
Perhaps the science is good, after all?

[erik_blank]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

Edit: When the holder of our first mortgage no longer was a local bank, they kept our mortgage and managed it from their head office. When the rest of their banking merged with another bank, our mortgage was still held with the original bank. They were on the mortgage agreement until we retired the mortgage. I understood it to be a legal agreement that couldn't get out of or sell without our agreement.

Interesting:

I know that my in-laws have had the experience of finding a new name on the mortgage payment slip five times in the last 10 years that I have known them. This has caused a LOT of confusion with them (they are not the sharpest tools in the shed, but good people none the less) and they would often come to me and my wife saying "I just don't uinderstand who these people are or what happened to my mortgage.." Being a cynical and suspicious person about all things corporate, I had twice called up the company for them to verify what was happening. On other occasions their checks got crossed in the mail and they were late because of the 'transfer' of the paper from one institution to another.

[Fencergrl]

Wow... I would have been quite worried if I saw that happening. I don't know how that's possible. If we can't alter the agreement without having the bank agree how can they? It's a legal document.