Chip, If you did say that, you'd be something of a moron.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that anthropomorphic global warming is a reality. The IPCC report is a representation of that consensus. Of course there are naysayers, for example the good old American Enterprise Institute.

Who are funded (in good part) by Exxon.

Irrespective of the somewhat myopic view that climate change is somehow not man-made or "man-worsened", I don't think many people would disagree that we humans as a species, need to learn to use less carbon in our daily lives, and the sooner people remove their heads from the sand about that fact, the better.

I agree that High-E is no place for a banner though.

Yes, lets push Kyoto for the U.S. while China builds 200 new coal burning plants using the highest sulfer content coal known!

Recent (Mar. 2007) satellite photos:



It may be hard to goad US and European individuals to cut back on personal carbon dioxide emissions while China loads up the atmosphere with it. (Yes, I know CO2 is invisible, but you know that such haze as you see contains much.)
I've heard that about 25% of California's air pollution is sent from China via slow transpacific airmail. And yes, I know, pointing a finger at China may be counterproductive, but it seems just as if ordinary citizens are lectured to be honest while the "big guys" cheat like bandits.

speaking of the Big Guys Cheating like Bandits;
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

spasmatron nailed it. There is no genuine debate. There's a lot of smog generated by people who have a vested interest in the unregulated emitting of greenhouse gases, but that's about it. Otherwise there would be at least a few peer-reviewed studies questioning global warming. As of 2004, there wasn't a single one (and 928 confirming it), and the evidence has just gotten stronger since then.

Gore vs Monckton would be a delightful 2007 reprise of Huxley vs Wilberforce. Man, if only videotape had been invented a century earlier - that must have been quite a rout.

To take this back into climbable terrain, besides worrying about the end of the world as a whole and the economy in general, does anyone have any sense of the net effect on climbing?

We'll sorely miss glaciers once they're largely gone, that's for sure, but it will make some approaches easier while others harder, right? Some routes, such as the North Face of the Eiger, have become harder, almost undoable, as solid ice and snow become verglass and water, but do other routes on other cliffs become lovely all-rock ascents that never were before?

Are there other direct consequences? More violent monsoons, perhaps?

spamatron & steve cherry make excellent points.

presently, we can thank our lucky stars for "global dimming".....

for now...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1108853,00.html

dont worry. the ice will be back in another 4000 years.

Most arguments on GW go something like this:
……………
Global Warming is real based on all the scientific data and studies. (most will use numerous sound bytes and graphs to try to ‘dumb’ down and simplify what is one of the more complicated, exhausted scientific studies of our time which is far from complete) ‘If’ a true connection with Global Warming and man made factors is not conclusive then one ‘must’ error on the side to do everything and anything to counter emissions since doing so it the right thing to do as inhabits of this earth. If we wait until the evidence is conclusive it will be too late to change it anyway.
……….

The former holds up with decades of science data, the latter point is but an ethical one of good nature. The scientific community does not evaluate or make conclusions based on ‘emotions’ yet most others fill in the unanswered questions with emotional statements that do injustices to the scientific communities work as a whole. (This happens on both ends of the GW spectrum)

For mainly that reason there becomes ‘debate’ which is born out of merging of scientific research with emotions and personal agendas.

The former holds up with decades of science data, the latter point is but an ethical one of good nature.

I think it's a lot more than an ethical point. It's a simple though imperfect cost-benefit analysis. It asks: what's the probability that people are contributing to global warming times the cost of the consequences of not taking action, versus the costs of taking action times the probable effects of taking action.

The debate, I think, is over the probabilities involved. The argument for taking action is that the chance that people are making the problem worse is significant, and the consequences huge; therefore, it's worth the costs of doing something about it. Reasonable people can disagree about the calculations, but it's more than an ethical point.

I think it's a lot more than an ethical point. It's a simple though imperfect cost-benefit analysis. It asks: what's the probability that people are contributing to global warming times the cost of the consequences of not taking action, versus the costs of taking action times the probable effects of taking action.

Those who have the power to do something might suffer some penalty for doing so, while if they do nothing and things go bad, they will be retired or dead by then.

Well Einstein, isn't that the root of about 99% of the debate.