[Timber Loftis]

Urging precaution is not "going into a tizzy" or being extreme. The fact that the cliff we thought we saw in front of us turned out to just be a steep downhill does not prove that we should have stepped on the gas pedal.

The original article has been well debunked, so I won't go there. Quite simply, some choice and incomplete bits of NASA data were taken and put to an analysis that backed a pre-determined and biased conclusion. (Notably, the original article also used every fallacy of argumentation that Azred (I think) pointed out in his rebuttal of some of the other posts herein.)

But, let's presume the facts are as the article stated -- let us say that the climate models use a rate of heat loss from the Earth that is too low or incorrect, and that the Earth does vent heat in the face of increasing GHGs faster than we thought. I have a few points about that, presuming its truth:

1. A model trying to predict what our fate might be when the actual existence of the planet might be at risk is not incorrect for using conservative numbers. In all environmental work, until the facts are known with exactness, we work off "conservative" data inputs (i.e. the most environmentally protective ones).

2. The fact that the Earth is dealing with its rising temperature by running a fever and venting heat more quickly than it previously did does not make me think all is well. In fact, when a person runs a fever, we have fair cause for concern. The fact that the planet is adapting to meet increasing demands that we, the organisms living upon it, place on its systems does not mean we have license to chug full speed ahead without fear of recourse.

3. For those in the crowd that hates all people who believe in GW as loonies, please consider this. About 92.45% of the things we advocate doing to alleviate the GW problem are THINGS WE OUGHT BE DOING ANYWAY. We can no longer continue to live off the dirty, hazardous burnings of dinosaur remains and think of ourselves as modern or advanced. It's a horrible, inefficient fuel whose time should end. In all its forms, burning of it puts volatile organics and poly-aromatic hydrocarbons into the air, water, and earth, as well as the infamous quad-fecta of known carcinogens known collectively as BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethelyne, xylene). Additionally, no intelligent creature should run an engine that wastes 40% or more of the potential energy input of the fuel it burns. The combustion engine, as best we can make it, is still a rickety shoddy old thing in terms of wasted resource inputs and hazardous icky outputs.