Global Warming: "The Debate is Over"
lkgeo1
Written by Dave Nalle
Published February 04, 2007
I think it says much more than they intended that CNN began their
story friday on the release of the IPCC's report on global warming
with the words "the debate is over." To a large degree that sentence
summarizes the history of global warming as a political issue, because
the focus of global warming supporters has always been more on
silencing debate than on proving their arguments. If no one dares
speak out against you for fear of losing endowments and being
pilloried in the press, the standard of proof for your theories
suddenly becomes much easier to meet. Peer review no longer has the
same meaning in a climate of fear and intimidation.
The release of the much heralded, 21-page IPCC report on global
warming, which summarizes the approved theory on the subject, is yet
another effort to drape what is essentially a political issue in the
mantle of scientific authority, and promote a political agenda and the
interests of particular groups at the expense of competing global
interests. With this report they've raised the stakes and moved
further away from science and deeper into the realm of politically
driven opportunistic alarmism.
Fitting in well with this are the hearings on global warming in the
Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, which are
looking at ways to address global climate change through new laws here
in the United States, and focusing a great deal of their ire on oil
companies like Exxon/Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell which have recently
reported record profits.
It all comes together in a great and glorious crescendo of righteous
certainty that global warming is here to stay, humans are responsible
for it, and the United States is the unmasked pantomime villain in the
great climatological morality play.
At the heart of the issue there is certainly unanimity. No one
anywhere, scientist of layman, really believes that the climate
carries on forever without change. It gets warmer, it gets colder and
patterns of weather shift all the time. Most people can even agree
that overall it's been getting gradually warmer for the last few
hundred years. Not surprising since we are coming out of a cooling
period which ended in the early modern era.
Where there is disagreement and where the debate actually does
continue, despite the repeated attempts to silence dissent, is over
the issue of what role human causation plays in global climate change.
Clearly humans can do things which alter the environment. Damming a
river can be a force for rapid and powerful regional climate change,
and many other things which humans do, including producing
hydrocarbons may also encourage environmental change.
What is not certain, and is described in even in the IPCC report as
only 'likely' is that humans are directly responsible for a worldwide
trend of global warming. What is even more speculative is the theory
that the imposition of harsh environmental restrictions can reverse
any natural or human-generated trends in the environment. In fact,
restrictions on human output of hydrocarbons proposed by environmental
groups likely fall enormously short of what would be necessary to slow
or even reverse climate change trends. To actually stop or reverse
climate change might require the total destruction of industrial
civilization as well as the extermination of at least half the human
population. Virtually no lesser methods could reverse changes which
have been building for hundreds of years.
Climate scientists like Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Patrick J.
Michaels, who do not agree with the majority views on human agency in
climate change, have become pariahs and are persecuted for their
beliefs. The most notable recent example of this is the crusade to
remove the accreditation of dissenting climatologists in broadcasting
by Dr. Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel. A common accusation
against climate heretics is that they accept funding from oil and
energy companies or from groups which get their support from the
energy industry, and therefore their beliefs are tainted. Political
pressure does come from both sides, and some global warming advocates
have claimed, and it was recently the focus of an investigation in the
U.S. House of Representatives, that government pressure has
discouraged them from pursuing climate change research.
There is certainly some evidence that political and financial
influence is shaping the arguments of some of those who don't
enthusiastically support the most alarmist positions on global climate
change. If you accept that much of the argument against the theory of
human agency in climate change is politically or financially
motivated, then why is it not also reasonable to look at the financial
and political interests of those who support the idea of human
causation in global climate change?
The IPCC, which leads the charge on global climate change, works under
the auspices of the United Nations. They are charged to provide "a
balanced reporting of existing viewpoints," yet their sources are
restricted solely to those who support the theory of human agency in
global climate change. Their methodology is inherently unscientific,
because they rule out of consideration any research with results which
don't conform to their expected results.
The IPCC is sponsored by the United Nations and draws on the work of
scientists who receive much of their funding from the United Nations
and related organizations. Just like any other funding, it comes with
subtle strings attached. It's pro-globalist money and it's in their
interests to keep it coming. The more they can enhance the power of
the UN by their research the more the UN will continue to support
them. Not surprisingly, the IPCC report focuses rather heavily on the
kinds of crises where the UN might be the only savior. Massive
droughts, crop failures, hurricanes, cities sliding into the sea -
worst case scenarios where international aid would be required and the
UN would be expected to play a large role.
Because of the way it is structured, the UN has a history of giving
special consideration to the interests of certain groups of nations
which are strongly opposed to the interests of the United States.
There are countries who feel that their interests are best advanced by
tearing down the U.S., and the UN and associated international groups
and treaties have become their instruments for doing this. This has
resulted in efforts like the Kyoto Treaty which gives a pass to
countries whose pollution to productivity ratio is higher than the
U.S., and instead focuses on gross hydrocarbon output. It amounts to
an attempt to stifle U.S. productivity to the benefit of countries
which are ultimately much larger pollution problems because they
produce types of pollution which the U.S. has already cleaned up, and
because their volume of pollution is growing exponentially while the
U.S. is reducing pollution on its own.
The various future scenarios presented in the IPCC report seem
particularly indicative that there is a political agenda rather than
just pure science at work here. Interestingly, all the scenarios with
a relatively positive outcome seem to rely on the forced imposition of
"equity" on the nations of the world, code for forced redistribution
of wealth and resources from the developed world to undeveloped
countries. A particularly ironic conclusion, since the developed
nations are far more efficient and less polluting in their consumption
of resources than emergent industrial societies are.
Even more than all of this, these climate scientists have an inherent
motivation of self-interest in promoting global warming, because if
we're in a climate crisis then we need more climate research, and we
need to fund more climate research projects, and we need more
university faculties in climatology. Climatologists, then, become more
important and better funded and have more job choices, because they
are the prophets who will show us the way out of our predicament.
Believing them when they tell us there's a climate crisis is rather
like believing the military when they tell us that the best solution
to our international problems is to invade everyone. Like any
profession, the marketplace rewards productivity, and in this case
producing a worldwide crisis is enormously rewarding for them.
Reaction to the IPCC report is already spreading, including the
expected calls for the use of global regulatory force but also a great
deal of skepticism about the increasingly blatant politicization of
the issue and the opportunistic alarmism which seems to dominate the
debate. More and more the argument is changing from one about whether
global warming exists to an argument over whether special interest
groups should be allowed to use the threat of global warming as a way
to cram their agendas down our throats.
In the midst of all this, some good sense does emerge as people
realize that there's no reason why individuals, groups and nations
can't take initiative and improve their management of resources and
their stewardship of the environment. Groups like ACORE have the right
idea when they see climate change as an opportunity to make our
industries more efficient and develop reliance on renewable energy,
including nuclear power, rather than fossil fuels.
Some see the threat of global climate change as a weapon which can be
used against the United States. It's not the only weapon directed at
us. Our reliance on fossil fuels originating elsewhere in the world
may be an even greater threat. Perhaps the best defense against these
attacks is to use our superior technological and economic resources to
force the next leap in technology, make a concerted effort to rapidly
achieve energy independence while we move towards a more self-
contained economy. Then we can leave the rest of the world squabbling
among themselves over who can have the remaining resources and who to
blame for their fouled rivers, clouded skies and starving people.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/04/070753.php
Paul E. Lehmann
Well written with what appears to be valid points
and things to consider.
Ok, forget about AGW for a moment. Do you or do
you not believe that the "Other" products
associated with CO2 in such things as vehicle
emissions and coal powered power plant emissions
etc are currently (not sometime in the future)
injurious to one's health? Personally, I
wonder if the "Other" health effects are more
important than the AGW issue. What are your
opinions about air pollution in general?
lkgeo1
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What these scientists want to tell you - right now - about global
warming.
(Feb. 2, 2007) This morning, at a press conference in Paris, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented the first
of several reports to be released this year on the subject of global
climate change and global warming. News of today's IPCC's announcement
is all over the web.
Earlier this week, Earth & Sky emailed about 500 scientists asking,
"What would like to tell the American public, right now, about global
warming?" We didn't select any scientists in particular, although we
tried to contact scientists who are experts on climate. Twenty six
scientists were kind enough - and concerned enough - to answer.
Their answers follow. They leave little doubt. Earth is getting
warmer. Humans are the most likely cause.
David Easterling ... "global warming is real"
I'd just like to leave the public with the thought that global warming
is real. We have certainly seen increases in temperature over the past
hundred years, and especially in the last 30 years. The scientific
community is at least in large part convinced that it's mainly due to
human activities. And it's something that I think needs to be taken
seriously.
David Easterling is Chief of the Scientific Services Division at
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, a
contributing author to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) Second and Third Assessment Reports, and a lead author for the
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report being released this year.
Elizabeth Holland ... "no longer uncertain"
I'm speaking here from my personal scientific view - not as an author
of an IPCC chapter, but my personal view. My view is that most of us
scientists are now convinced that global warming is happening. We are
now convinced that the most likely cause of global warming is human
activity. And we are no longer uncertain about whether the climate is
warming. We are actually quite certain that the climate is warming,
and we are certain that human activity is the cause.
Elisabeth Holland is a Senior Scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research. She was lead author of Chapter 7 of the IPCC
report, which outlined connections between changes in Earth's climate
and biogeochemistry.
Adam Sobel ... "happening now"
I am a climate scientist, and would like to say this.
Global warming is real, and is happening now. There are details we
don't understand, but the big picture is very clear. The evidence has
become overwhelming.
Adam Sobel is an Associate Professor in the Department of Applied
Physics and Applied Mathematics and in the Department of Earth and
Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
Amber Soja ... "a reality we must address"
Global warming is a current reality and it is driven, in part, by
humankind. All but a handful of climate-related scientists, worldwide,
are convinced of this reality.
Temperature increases and warming-induced change are progressing
faster than had been predicted in some regions, suggesting a potential
non-linear rapid response to changes in climate, as opposed to the
predicted slow linear response to climate change. The greatest
increases in warming are predicted to occur and are occurring in
northern hemisphere upper latitudes, and evidence exists in melting
glaciers, longer growing seasons, larger and more severe fire seasons,
and changes in species assemblages at upper altitudes and latitudes.
There is currently much to be learned about the interactive processes
that force and feedback within our climate system, and in this venue,
there is much debate. This is not a gloom and doom prognostication,
but a reality that we must mindfully and responsibly address today.
Climate change is not some future possibility. Climate change is
apparent today.
Amber Soja is a research scientist with the National Institute of
Aerospace, currently resident in the Climate Dynamics branch of NASA
Langley Research Center.
Waleed Abdalati ... "climate can adversely affect human society"
Climate is changing. It always has, and it always will. What is
different now as compared to past human history is that we are at a
point where we humans are having a significant global impact on our
Earth environment. We can't say for certain that those impacts will
bring dire consequences , nor can we say that those impacts will be
minor. The balance of the evidence, however, suggests that climate
will change in ways that can significantly and adversely impact
society, and the seriousness of those impacts is going to depend on
three things:
1. the magnitude of the changes
2. the rate at which they occur, and
3. our ability to anticipate and prepare for them.
Scientists are working hard to improve our ability to anticipate those
changes, and effective policies can help reduce the magnitudes and
rates of change. The longer longer we as a society wait to take
meaningful steps to adapt to and mitigate climate change, the greater
the level or sacrifice will be to meet those challenges. For this
reason everyone should be paying attention to climate change and
discussing it in real terms, not exaggerated arguments targeted at
trying to make a particular point. The more literate the general
public is on this issue and the more society as a whole understands
the nature of climate change, the more likely we as a society can work
to achieve solutions to the climate change challenge.
The bottom line is, I don't think we should be afraid, but we should
all be very concerned.
Waleed Abdalati is head of the Cryospheric Sciences Program at NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center.
M. Granger Morgan ... "we need deep cuts in emissions"
I want to say two things.
First, the main cause of climate change comes from carbon dioxide
produced when we humans burn coal, oil and natural gas.
Second, unlike conventional pollutants that stay in the atmosphere a
few hours or days, once carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere much of
it stays there for a century. That means that to reduce concentrations
(which are what cause warming and climate change) we're going to have
to reduce emissions by 80% or more. We need deep cuts, not just
stablization of emissions.
M. Granger Morgan is head of the Department of Engineering and Public
Policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
Bruce Wielicki ... "global warming does not mean uniform temperature
change"
When you see climate signals discussed in reports like the IPCC,
remember that climate scientists are basing these on the big picture,
and that "global warming" does not mean uniform temperature change
over the entire Earth.
The climate system is sufficiently complex that like the economic
analogy: it does not do anything in a simple uniform way. So even when
the global average temperature is increasing, a few places will
actually be cooling.
The scientific debate is shifting from whether mankind is causing
climate change (we are), to how large a change we can expect in the
future, how fast climate will change, and what the regional impacts
will be. In the coming decades, even regional climate change will
reach levels that exceed natural variability. In some areas like the
polar regions, it already has. This will be much easier for the public
to understand as their own regional climate change becomes
increasingly obvious. But we cannot wait that long to act. (for more,
see Don't notice climate change yet? You will.)
Bruce Wielicki of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virgina
is the Principal Investigator for CERES, a project now using four
instruments on two different Earth-orbiting satellites to monitor how
clouds affect our climate.
Michael Mann ... "false controversy"
Unfortunately, there are a number of so-called "organizations," a lot
of their funding can be traced back to fossil fuel corporations.
They're often not much more than a p.o. box and an individual or two
who are behind them. They have been paid money to manufacture false
controversy. They've been doing that for years. That has been a
particularly profound influence here in the United States. That'll
probably continue to go on for some time.
I'm pleased, and many of us are pleased that Exxon-Mobil has announced
that they are no longer going to provide funding for many of these
organizations that they were providing to manufacture this false
controversy. This was actually detailed in an extensive report by the
Union of Concerned Scientists that was issued about a month ago, where
they detailed all of the unfortunate ways that Exxon-Mobil had been
funding to cloud the public understanding of the science. Well, it
looks like they're backing away from that now. But I don't think that
that means that we're not going to see some efforts of that sort
again, even with this next IPCC report. So we shouldn't be surprised
that there will be some talking heads out there, probably most of them
financed by industry, to try to confuse the public's understanding of
the report, to try to raise false criticisms of the conclusions that
have been drawn. We're going to see some of that. There's no question.
So it's important for us to keep in mind that we're probably seeing
the last gasps of this sort of disinformation effort that is probably
in its tail end now that the science has become ever more strong as
time has gone on.
Michael Mann, professor of meteorology and geosciences at Pennsylvania
State University and director of the university's Earth System Science
Center.
Alan R. Townsend ... "no longer on the distant horizon"
Global climate change is no longer just a threat on the distant
horizon. It is with us today, and it is already affecting the lives of
people around the world. We can do something about it, but now is the
time for nations everywhere to begin those efforts in earnest. The
more we delay, the more we increase the probability of abrupt and
truly significant changes in climate that would have enormous social
and economic consequences.
Alan R. Townsend is the Associate Director for the Institute of Arctic
and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
Helen Amanda Fricker ... "changing habits"
Yes, global warming is very, very real. It is actually happening and
is not a myth. The ramifications around the world are being seen all
the time, and this will only get worse unless the major countries
contributing to the problem reduce their carbon dioxide emissions
significantly. While people are not believing it and not doing
anything to change, the problem is getting worse. By the time everyone
is convinced, it will be too late. It takes effort to change habits,
and I think that is why there are so many people refusing to change.
Changing habits starts at home, and one simple way I could see the
average household in the US reducing their energy consumption is to
start line-drying their washing instead of using tumble dryers.
Millions of people in Europe and Australia hang their washing out to
dry, in their back yard or patio. In fact, in Australia the "Hill's
Hoist" washing line in the back yard is commonplace. The same is not
true in the US. Here, for some reason, seeing your neighbor's washing
is not tasteful or acceptable, and it is actually forbidden to hang
out washing in some places. This needs to change. In some parts of the
US, such as California, the conditions are perfect for drying clothes
outside. The air is dry and the sun is warm, sometimes it actually
takes less time than in the dryer, and consumes no energy at all!
Helen Amanda Fricker is research geophysicist with the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography.
Bruce A. Boe ... "we are stewards"
The Earth's climate is changing. The planet appears to be warming,
perhaps as much as 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 40 or 50 years,
according to the newest report by the IPCC. According to the report,
this projected change is occurring primarily because of human
activities.
Change of any kind, warming or cooling, will certainly have impacts on
the world's weather and economies. Those impacts will be negative in
some areas, and positive in others. We humans are the only species on
the planet capable of causing such changes, at least so rapidly. It is
our responsibility to be good stewards of this planet which we call
home.
At the same time, we must recognize that the Earth's climate has
always changed. The "Little Ice Age" which occurred between 1300 and
1850, is a very recent example. Some 12,000 years ago, a mere blink in
geologic time, glaciers covered much of the northern hemisphere.
Furthermore, it is well established that the irradiance of our sun,
often termed "the solar constant", is not completely constant, after
all.
The bottom line is this: We humans need to be the best stewards of the
planet we can, but at the same time should recognize that control of
the climate ultimately does not rest with us. The climate has always
changed, and will always change. It is absurd to think, even for a
second, that the climate can somehow be "steadied" to our liking.
We must also be aware that there are many sources of carbon dioxide in
addition to the combustion of fossil fuels. Each of us exhales
approximately 1.2 ounces of carbon dioxide per hour, if we choose to
breathe. Just for the United States, this is an additional 270,000
tons of CO2 added to our atmosphere per day!
So what should we do? Plant more trees. Drive less. Recycle more. And
keep breathing.
Bruce A. Boe is Director of Meteorology at Weather Modification, Inc.
He is a present member and past chair of the American Meteorological
Society's Committee on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification.
Isaac Held ... "droughts ... environmental justice"
I am most concerned about the changes in tropical rainfall patterns
that will accompany global warming, especially increased frequency and
severity of droughts in underdeveloped regions that have the fewest
resources to adapt to changing conditions. This is a question of
"environmental justice", with many regions of the developing world
likely to be affected adversely, not due to their own actions, but as
a consequence of the emissions of greenhouse gases by the developed
world.
Isaac Held is a senior research scientist at the Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
W. H. Berger ... "sea level rise"
The history of ice ages for the last 600,000 years suggests that a sea
level rise of three feet per century occurred about ten percent of the
time during warm periods such as we live in. And there was no excess
greenhouse effect to push the system. Thus, to a geologist familiar
with ice-age climates, a global sealevel rise distinctly exceeding
three feet in a century would hold no surprise whatever.
W. H. Berger is a professor of oceanography in the Geosciences
Research Division in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at
University of California, San Diego.
Norm Ellstrand ... "I am changing my lifestyle"
As a geneticist whose research addresses the risks of plant
biotechnology, people often ask me what I think is the earth's most
pressing environmental crisis. The answer is a no-brainer, "global
warming". It surprises folks because they are waiting for something
about genetics. But for the past decade I have been concerned about
global warming. It's so easy to see what a nasty legacy we are handing
to our grandchildren. But I don't just worry, I'm doing something
about it. I am changing my lifestyle. I asked my family to donate to
tree planting programs instead of buying me birthday presents. I am a
commuter cyclist, enjoying hundreds of carbon-free miles a month! We
have replaced as many lightbulbs at home with compact fluorescents.
Every little decision counts. Do you really need that plastic bag?
Finally, I am giving up teaching my genetics for non-majors class so
that I can teach a science-of-food class -- a venue where it is more
appropriate to sneak in a lecture or two on global warming.
Norman C. Ellstrand is a professor of genetics at the University of
California Riverside.
Bill Patzert ... "skeptics going way of dodo bird"
The global warming skeptics are going the way of the dodo bird - to
extinction. The evidence is in. We're definitely living in a warming
world and headed into unknown, dangerous territory. The future of our
civilization is at stake! It's time for each and every one of us to
change wasteful habits and cut back on our energy consumption. A good
start would be losing the SUV. Real men and women drive hybrids or
take the bus. Let's all think more and use less - of everything.
Remember, warming is global, but solutions are local and - bottom line
- individual.
Bill Patzert, scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
C. Mark Eakin ... "coral reef ecosystems"
Our warming climate has already changed many of the world's
ecosystems, and will continue to affect them into the future. The
first recorded mass coral bleaching event happened in 1982. As ocean
temperatures have risen since then, coral bleaching and death have
increased in frequency and intensity. Coral bleaching occurs when
stressed corals expel the symbiotic micro-algae living in their
tissues - algae that provide corals with food. Severe or prolonged
high temperatures kill corals, leaving reefs devoid of key ecosystem
processes and vulnerable to natural processes of erosion that break
down the structures that form the basis for major food chains. When
this happens over large areas- as it did in 1997-98 in the Indian and
Pacific Oceans and 2005 in the Caribbean region- it has wide-reaching
ecological, social, and economic impacts on ecosystems that support
$375 billion annually in fish, seafood, tourism, and coastal
protection worldwide. There is growing scientific evidence that it is
unlikely that corals can adapt fast enough to keep pace with even the
most conservative climate change projections. This means that as
global temperatures rise, we expect to see more reef corals around the
world bleaching and dying.
We have two means of addressing this problem: the root issue and
contributing threats. Solving the root issue, of course, requires
reducing oceanic warming by reducing the human contribution to
greenhouse gases. However, reducing global greenhouse gas
concentrations is beyond the direct control of coral reef resource
managers. Instead, managers need to reduce the local environmental
stresses under their control, thus increasing the resilience of coral
reef ecosystems to the bleaching caused by oceanic warming. As the
world continues to warm, resource managers around the globe will have
to take greater actions to mitigate the impacts of climate change
through local actions.
C. Mark Eakin is NOAA's Coral Reef Watch Coordinator.
Lisa Graumlich ... "national parks"
For the past 25 years, I have been doing field work at high elevations
in the mountains of the Western US. I have worked in the premier
national parks, including Glacier, Yellowstone, Mt. Rainier, Yosemite,
and Sequoia. In all of these parks, we are seeing the fingerprint of
global climate change. Glaciers are disappearing and plants, animals
and insect pests are moving upslope at unprecedented rates. Our
national parks can no longer be protected from human influence by
building a fence or hiring park rangers. Recall that national parks
are an American invention. In fact, the writer Wallace Stegner often
remarked that the idea of national parks was the best idea that we
ever had. It's my fervent hope that we find the will to address global
climate change in order to ensure that the parks and wild places of
the West continue to delight and inspire future generations.
Lisa Graumlich is a professor and director of the School of Natural
Resources at the University of Arizona.
Ken Caldeira ... "can we transcend our past?"
Carbon dioxide is increasing more rapidly and to higher levels than
has been experienced on Earth for perhaps 50 million years or more.
The consequences of our actions will leave its imprint on the Earth
for millions of years to come.
Ecosystems and organisms have not evolved to cope with such rapid
change, despite the fact that these changes seem slow by our human
standards. If we do not change our ways, and soon, our activities
threaten the collapse of ice sheets, loss of entire ecosystems, and
shifts in precipitation that could potentially initiate famines and
other forms of suffering. We might be lucky, and outcomes might turn
out not to be this bad, but who is in the mood to gamble?
Reversing the increasing trend in carbon dioxide emissions will take
an effort on the scale of today's military expenditures. We are
willing to spend those resources when the threat is external, but will
we be willing to do the same when the threat is from ourselves?
Our hunter-gatherer minds have developed to address problems involving
competition and problems that are local in scale, and where planning
for the future meant hoarding enough nuts to last the winter. Can we
transcend our hunter-gatherer past and develop the wisdom to cooperate
to address problems that are global in scale and involve time horizons
of decades and longer?
Music and art show that our minds have capabilities that go far beyond
what could be reasonably expected to develop out of the brutal forces
of evolution. Let us demonstrate that our minds have the equally
unexpected capability to solve the environmental problems facing us
today.
Ken Caldeira is in the Carnegie Institution Department of Global
Ecology where scientists attempt to understand how humanity can
prosper sustainably.
Kai Lee ... "enlightened and active public needed"
Global climate change is a slow but now unstoppable process that will
bring large changes to the natural world. Most of these, however, will
not be apparent to people living in rich countries.
In order to contain the long-term damage from human-caused warming,
and in order to adjust to the warmer world we are still creating, it
is essential for people to make small but important changes in the way
they live.
Of these, the most important is energy conservation and efficiency.
This does NOT mean a poorer lifestyle necessarily. It does mean
insulating one's attic and exterior walls, using public transit when
available and working for there to be better transit options, and it
means supporting carbon taxes or other means of building in the real
costs of climate change into the everyday economic choices people
make. None of this is hard to live with, but it also does not have a
strong-enough constituency, yet, to change public policy -
particularly the higher charges for energy. For that reason, an
enlightened and active public will be needed for the next several
years (through and beyond the 2008 presidential election in the US).
We can do this, but we can't wait for others to do it for us.
Kai N. Lee is the Rosenburg Professor of Environmental Studies at
Williams College.
Ron Flick and Bob Guza ... "sea level rise"
Sea level rise over the coming century, a consequence of global
warming, could reduce drastically the availability of southern
California beaches for recreation and protection of public and private
infrastructure. If sand supplies are not greatly increased, beaches
that are now narrow, with only a small strip of sand between the high
tide line and cliffs or seawalls backing the beach, could disappear
entirely.
Reinhard "Ron" Flick is a Research Associate at the Center for Coastal
Studies, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of
California, San Diego. Robert Guza, is a Professor at the Center for
Coastal Studies, Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP), Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego.
Roger Edwards ... "tornadoes"
Will we have more, fewer or as many tornadoes 100 years from now? As
an atmospheric scientist specializing in tornadoes, my short answer
is: we simply don't know.
As of this writing, no scientific studies solidly relate climatic
global temperature trends to tornadoes. I don't expect any such
results in the near future either, because tornadoes are too small,
short-lived, hard to measure and count, and too dependent on day to
day, even minute to minute weather conditions.
Is it possible that any given shift in global temperature patterns may
eventually change long-term tornado risk probability? Maybe, just
maybe...if we make assumptions built on assumptions built on
assumptions, about subtleties of regional warming (or cooling) by a
few degrees, and how it might change the distribution of the four
basic ingredients for tornado producing storms (for more, see Will
global warming cause more tornadoes?).
Our challenge is to predict future worldwide changes in something we
haven't sharply defined, can't even count or measure very well, and
that we often can't predict an hour from now, all based on a model
that doesn't know it exists. That "something" is a most elusive, quick
and stealthy quarry: the tornado. We might meet this challenge
someday, but right now we're a long, long way from that place in
science.
Roger Edwards is a meteorologist at the Storm Prediction Center of the
National Weather Center in Norman, Oklahoma.
Colin Price ... "worried about surprises"
The facts are that the temperatures observed today and during the last
few decades are the highest they have been for at least 1000 years if
not longer (we don't have accurate data further than that).
Furthermore, the concentration of greenhouse gases that are known to
absorb heat emitted from the Earth's surface are now the highest we
have seen in at least 600 thousand years, and likely longer (we have
no data going back further in time). If you don't trust the
temperature data, take a look outside. 95% of all mountain glaciers
around the world are melting and receding. The Greenland ice sheet is
dramatically losing mass (ice) due to melting, while the summer Arctic
sea ice is continuously shrinking every year. (for more, see The Earth
has a fever!)
What we scientists are worried about now are surprises. It is much
easier to melt the Greenland ice sheet than it is to rebuild it. The
ice and snow around the planet have a cooling effect due to their
white color that reflects large amounts of solar radiation back to
space. Without this ice and snow, additional radiation will be
absorbed at the surface and the Earth will warm even more. The thawing
of the high latitude permafrost (frozen ground) may result in huge
emissions of CH4 that will also accelerate the warming.
Colin Price is a professor in the Department of Geophysics and
Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University.
Jay Gulledge ... "change is the key word"
Change is the key word in climate change. For most people, this change
will involve larger, more frequent extremes. For instance, in 2030 a
Midwestern city will probably experience more rainfall, but it will
likely come in fewer, larger events, with more frequent flooding. And
between these events, there might be more frequent, longer, and hotter
droughts. Residents of the city may come to expect 100+ degrees for
many days running during extended droughts, when the soil is dry and
no longer draws heat from the air. In summer, peak water and
electricity demand will probably grow faster than city planners
anticipated, requiring emergency infrastructure investments. With
fewer hard freezes in winter, more pesticides will likely be needed to
control mosquitoes and other pests. We will need to bolster emergency
health care funds and disaster response systems to cope with these new
extremes. (for more, see In Climate change, 'change' is key word)
Jay Gulledge is a senior research fellow and staff scientist at the
Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
John Kermond ... "I have seen it"
Having been involved in the U.S. Global Change Research Program from
its inception in 1989, I have been exposed to most of the conferences,
workshops, reports and assessments that have been made, including
those from the International Panel on Climate Change. I have not read
every word or watched every animation or talking head, but I have read
and seen a lot.
Fast forward to 2007 and I do not have to read another single word
with respect to global warming. I have seen it! In both hemispheres of
this planet.
In the late summer of 2006, I spent 3 weeks aboard a Russian ice
breaker in the Arctic. We found less ice in extent; less ice in
thickness; and, very warm water pouring into the Arctic from the
Atlantic Ocean. In the fall, I traveled to my native Australia and
went to the beach in the town that I was raised - Warrnambool. When I
was a kid there, you had to run (fast) over the hot sand before you
got to a place on the wide beach where you could put down a towel. You
still had quite a hike before your feet got wet. Total sandy beach in
the order of 50 to 80 meters. In October of 2006, at high tide, there
was 1 to 3 meters of beach available. Even the sand dunes along the
two mile crescent shaped beach terminate in a vertical wall with roots
of plants exposed. The beach is shrinking. The ocean is rising.
Both of these observations are clinical manifestations of global
warming. And they are as predicted. For over a decade we have said
that global warming will manifest itself in the higher latitudes. We
are seeing the effects of global warming via ice reduction at both
Poles, and in a rising sea level in many parts of the world. Already
the citizens of Vanuatu (a tiny atoll in the Pacific) have decided to
leave and re-settle in new Zealand. The citizens of Shishmareff in
Alaska have also decided to leave and re-locate because the sea is
taking back their land.
John Kermond is a UCAR Visiting Scientist with NOAA's Climate Program
Office.
Tom Knutson ... "merely the beginning"
There is no doubt that the Earth has warmed over the past century or
more. The question has been: what role have humans have played in
causing this warming, especially through burning of fossil fuels that
have caused an increase in greenhouse gases that blanket the planet?
The answer from most scientists who study this problem in detail is
that we are now more confident than ever that humans have caused most
of the warming, particularly over the last 50 years, and that this man-
made warming stands out well above the background of natural climate
variability.
But the warming to date is merely the beginning of what is expected to
be a much more pronounced global warming in the coming century,
although how much warming will occur will depend on how humans
continue to modify the atmosphere, and we still have many
uncertainties that need to be narrowed in our scientific understanding
of the climate system. Warmer global temperatures are just one symptom
- perhaps the most obvious one at present - of a global scale change
to the Earth's climate that has great potential to affect future
generations in important and varied ways. Some climate change impacts
are expected to be beneficial in
some regions. But stronger hurricanes, more heat waves and drought,
and increased storm surge damage from rising seas are among the
harmful changes we expect to see as we humans continue this global
"experiment" with our planet. The challenge facing scientists - and in
fact humanity - is to understand and deal with this complex issue in
what is already a complicated world.
Tom R. Knutson is a research meteorologist with the Climate Dynamics
and Prediction Group at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.
21 Comments for After IPCC, 26 scientists speak on global warming
1
Feb 2, 10:16 AM #
stevenearlsalmony says:
Wonderful, just wonderful. Thanks to all participants here and to the
Earth & Sky community. Now if we can encourage many more voices to
speak out.
If the IPCC is somehow on the right track, then it seems to me that
human behavior change is in the offing.
Perhaps we can begin by seeing how each and every human being can make
a difference. If unrestrained growth of the human population, the
predominant global economy and per human consumption are beginning to
overwhelm global ecosystems and exceeding the planet's productive
carrying capacity, then would it not make sense for human beings in
the UNDEVELOPED world to choose to voluntarily limit human
reproduction; for people in the DEVELOPING world to make choices to
sensibly limit pernicious polluting effects of industrialization and
big business conglomeration; and for individuals in the DEVELOPED
world to limit per human consumption of scarce natural resources
because the current scale and rate of growth of unbridled human
propagation, untethered economic expansion and unchecked per capita
consumption are patently unsustainable on the small planet God has
blessed us to inhabit?
This is not to say, for example, that individuals in the developed
world could not choose to limit their consumption of resources, reduce
their contributions to environmental degradation AND have fewer
children. Some people will be in a position to do more than others;
however, if everyone does what can be done, necessary change will
occur.
As important as individual action is, there is a need for many people
to engage our brothers and sisters in governments, corporations and
the mass media regarding the potential adverse consequences of climate
change. At least to me, the cooperation of the power-brokers, managers
and promoters of the economic globalization agenda appears to be
imperative.
Thanks to all for your great work.
Always,
Steve
Feb 2, 11:53 AM #
Deborah Byrd says:
What's most interesting to me here - besides the fact that many
scientists are now willing to speak out about global warming - is that
these scientists are also now speaking of "changing habits" and
"changing lifestyles."
>From what I read, in our attempts to keep global warming under
control, we Americans may need to change our level of energy use and
consumerism.
But what's also interesting about THAT are the scientific studies
being done on well-being. It seems it's true ... or at least the
evidence is pointing to this truth ... money and things can't buy you
happiness.
2
Feb 2, 01:32 PM #
Diana says:
I think people need to know what more we can do as individuals other
than lobbying government/industry. We know to use more fuel efficient
vehicles, walk instead of drive, turn down the thermostat. What else
can scientists suggest we do?
3
Feb 2, 02:16 PM #
Rubylikeaflame says:
I'm not a scientist, but I think we should just always be thinking
about how we use energy, and then use less energy. Like remember to
turn off the lights, or hang out the clothes instead of using a drier.
4
Feb 3, 12:02 AM #
Michael Bailes says:
We have had the rhetoric
We have identified the problem
Now how about some constructive solutions??
EG
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/3451-terra-preta.html?highlight=Terra+preta
Get cracking! Time is running short and there are a lot of people on
the net looking for ways to help solve the problem
michaelangelica
5
Feb 3, 05:34 AM #
Judith says:
Yes global warming is human created but not in the manner we are
expected to believe.
In the 60s scientists feared the Americans (the term was Tickling the
Ionisphere) which turns out that they heat the Ionisphere to boilng
point.
It was explained that the Ionisphere is to the Earth what the membrane
that holds the fluid is to protect a foetus in the womb.
Therein lies the cure...Stop Them.
Did America ever dispose of Nuclear waste in the Antarctic?
6
Feb 3, 08:15 AM #
Jack Alexander says:
Listen (or read) the herd mentality above. Doesn't it sicken you as it
does me? All afraid to sound like independent thinkers. It's always
been the emissions thing with them. Never do they consider that the
earth evolves and has been changing from hot to cold to hot again for
eons.
The sun plays a large part in the effects of the weather and that
cannot be denied. The earth is struck several thousands of times each
moment by lightning strikes creating fires. Volcanism spews ton(nes)
of material and gases constantly. The tilt and wobble of the planet
changes constantly. The position of the current north star vs. the one
of many years ago verifies this.
But we must always blame puny humans and their attempt to exist. The
fact is the current dogma presented here has is origination in the
corporate world. They want us to change our ways so that they can sell
us new products that supposedly will correct the imaginary problem
WHILE THEY (as the parasites they are) GET RICHER OFF OF THE PUBLIC!
When will you people grow up and learn about the planet on the long
term scale and learn to live with it and stop being the victims of the
corporate forces? Think about it: Isn't most of the money that
finances studies of imaginary crisis come from the organisations that
want to exploit us?
Change happens naturally and any un-natural attempt to stop it will be
more damaging than doing nothing.... jea...@gmail.com
Feb 3, 08:23 AM #
Deborah Byrd says:
Judith, I believe what you're describing may have been an idea in the
1960s of what would happen during a nuclear war. It is not really
related to the current understanding of global warming.
Many thanks for your comment, though. It reminds us that our co-
existence with nature on this planet has many facets!
All the best,
Deborah
Feb 3, 08:38 AM #
Deborah Byrd says:
Jack, I honor your opinion and share your frustration. But as a
science writer with 30 years of experience, I cannot agree that the
idea of global warming was started by corporations.
Instead, the idea of global warming stemmed from measurements made on
a mountaintop in Hawaii, beginning in the 1950s. These measurements -
made then, and still being made today - show an increasing amount of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasees in Earth's atmosphere.
In the 1960s and '70s, as they measured from year to year, scientists
were surprised to find this increase. Like you, they would not have
imagined - at that time - that "puny humans" could have such an
effect.
But, even the '60s and '70s, scientists knew that greenhouse gases
trap heat. And, by the 1970s when I became a science writer,
scientists were already saying that human activities were the likely
cause of this increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. They
were using the tools of science - physics, mathematics, computers,
Earth-orbiting satellites - to study this idea. By the 1970s, they
were already predicting that Earth would begin to warm noticeably as a
result of excess greenhouse gases - caused by human activities - in
the atmosphere.
And now Earth has begun to warm noticeably.
Global warming is not a "plot" by the left or right. It is a real
observed phenomenon on the Earth.
And as scientists' understanding has increased over the last few
decades, they have begun to see the MANY ways in which humans affect
Earth, while Earth is affecting humanity. Scientists now speak of
Earth and its humans as a "coupled" system. This is an active area of
scientific study in the 21st century.
It's why Earth & Sky - which tries to be "a clear voice for science" -
speaks often of a human world.
My best to you,
Deborah
7
Feb 3, 02:47 PM #
rick redzinski says:
Unfortunately a society as self indulgent and decadent as ours will
never contribute significantly to the repairing of the earth because
we will need to be forced into using less of the earths resources.The
mega rich will keep producing merchandise that the so called "average
American household NEEDS and WANTS.We are producing a nation of fat
ass couch potatoes and SUV drivers on their way to MacDonalds.We ARE
our own worst enemy.We ARE leaving a legacy of extinction to our
children.We ARE getting dumber with each new generation.The next
global war will reduce this nation to an occupied third rate
country.Our politicians are afraid of their own shadow and the new
ones coming up for the next election are no better.There will never be
a heaven on earth as long as it is al about power and money.
8
Feb 3, 03:54 PM #
Craig Rooney says:
I empathize with those who feel overwhelmed, as individuals, with
regard to confronting the large issues of our common era. I also know
that it is easy to feel powerless to affect trends that are so much
larger than we are. I respectfully submit to you, however, that the
environment (and specifically the health of plants) should be the
unquestioned top of our priority list. Some feel it is inhumane to
make it so. Consider this: if the plants die, everything dies. If the
environment fails to sustain us as a species then all of the other
issues of injustice, inequality, and fairness will cease to have
meaning...because we will all be dead. Caring first for the environment
does not mean that we have to be insensitive to other issues facing
our human brothers and sisters; it simply means that our offspring
will be on this planet long enough to resolve them.
When you're feeling small also consider this: if you change the two
most frequently used light bulbs in your house with compact
flourescent bulbs and if you plant one tree, you can personally reduce
air pollution by 1000 pounds this year. You! This year! (And think
about how much more you could actually do in addition to those simple
changes). Good luck to each of us in saving the planet.
9
Feb 3, 03:57 PM #
Simon C. Schotsman says:
Facts don't lie, global warming is with us and will only get worse as
time goes on. Having established that, it is time to act. Based on my
experience as a former troubleshooter in my business, is it most
important to study the problem and then proceed with finding a
solution. So let us concentrate on that.
Today's living standard's requirements are such that factories can
barely keep up with demands. As industry and commerce are on a
constant increase, so is their demand for electrical power.
More and more Power Generating Stations are being built to satisfy
those needs. These power generating facilities have been a growing
concern as most of them are large contributors to our problem. Other
than solar, wind or hydro(water) power facilities, all do contribute
in one form or another to global warming. Not only by affecting the
atmosphere (thus also the air we breathe) but also consider the
enormous amounts of hot water released into our waterways by each and
everyone of such facilities, and in particular the nuclear facilities,
which need a constant supply of water for cooling their reactors. Most
of these water sources are connected to oceans. Does this rising
temperature phenomenon
of ocean waters correlate with where the heaviest concentrations of
power generating stations is found?
In studying this matter I did find a solution of eliminate these
negative aspects of generating electrical power and instead generate
clean, reliable and constant electrical power in a manner not
presently being done. The source used for this generating process is
free and in abundant supply, yet, even through usage will not diminish
in quantity or quality.
I am still in the process of trying to find a University team that
will partner with me in developing this idea for commercial
implementation. In designing this process I included the condition
that it must be able to be of worldwide benefit, in particular, to
help the less developed nations. That is my contribution to society.
10
Feb 3, 04:44 PM #
stevenearlsalmony says:
Dear Rick Redzinski,
Life does not have to be all "about power and money," as you put it. I
realize how regularly we hear that the unrestained growth of the ever
expanding global political economy is "the only game in town". Now
that is the way things are made to appear, thanks to the masters of
the universe who power-broker, manage and promote unlimited
maximization of economic industrialization, ever increasing per human
consumption of scarce resources, and skyrocketing absolute global
human population numbers.
Perhaps the masters of the universe have not discovered "the one and
only best way to live" on this small, wondrous planet God has blessed
us to inhabit. Many are the ways to live well and sustainably in this
world. Human history is replete with examples.
Who knows, given the small size of Earth, we may come to find there
are such things as limits to the growth of large-scale industries once
they take on the size and habits of the dinosaurs. In all likelihood,
there is not a way for human beings to endlessly increase their rate
of consumption of resources in this planetary home. First, because
natural resources are limited and, second, because morbid obesity
leads to death. Who knows, we may find that the Earth cannot sustain
even the 9 billion inhabitants which are estimated to be present on
Earth's surface in the year 2050.
If we make necessary changes in a timely way, then there is not a
basis for the belief that "we ARE leaving a legacy of extinction to
our children," I suppose. On the other hand, if we choose to stay the
course and not change, but instead to continue following the self-
proclaimed masters of the universe down the "primrose path" to
impending industrial unsustainability, then unthinkably unwelcome
changes could be in the offing for our children.
My not-so-great generation of elders knows better, and we can do
better than we are doing. I am trusting we will make changes to
sustainable ways of living well in this wondrous place in the
universe.
Sincerely,
Steve
11
Feb 3, 05:13 PM #
monaxle says:
Some very considered opinions. It's great that the message is getting
out which I think it is. Media coverage has been pervasive of this
report. I wonder if we will get past the message and onto sustainable
solutions. Thoughts of mass bio fuel source farming to feed an ever so
green energy consuming market could perhaps be alarming.
12
Feb 3, 07:35 PM #
Chris M. says:
This global warming debate is obviously a great source of
consternation for many people, but have you considered the following
glaring facts?
1. The so-called experts, including numerous scientists and
meterologists, find it impossible to reliably predict our weather from
DAY to DAY in any one city or region. Why should we place such blind
faith in those same experts to predict what is going to happen to our
whole earth climate over the next 100 YEARS?
2. After the extremely active hurricane season in the U.S. in 2005,
numerous of these same "experts" predicted gloom and doom for the 2006
hurricane season, and publicly claimed that it would be even worse. In
reality, the 2006 season was mild and more in keeping with the average
season when compared to the last 150 years.
3. The global warming debate means BIG money in research grants and
various government subsidies to many scientists and organizations
around the world. Indeed, without such debate, there are a great many
persons who would be forced to look for work elsewhere. Is it any
wonder that many of these persons' agendas MIGHT be to keep their jobs
and keep the money rolling in?
4. What of those persons who do not agree with the IPCC and its
reporting? One such scientist is discussed in the article at the link
shown below. It is interesting to note that he was one of the more
highly regarded scientists within the IPCC community. Here is his
story:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0
5. No one can deny that the earth has been experiencing natural
periods of increasing and decreasing temperatures for millions of
years. The various ice ages and warmer times occurred long before man
even existed, and certainly long before man began with the
industrialization and burning of fossil fuels. Since our same experts
cannot unequivocally determine and agree on what caused those natural
earth shifts (some of which were only a few thousand years ago), again
I ask why we should put blind faith in their gloomy forecast now?
With all these facts stated, I concede that I do not believe mankind
should sit idly by or indiscriminately waste our resources. Everyone
can do their part to reduce consumption, and reuse and recycle
products where possible. I firmly believe we are responsible for being
good stewards of our earth. But that does not mean we are to be slaves
to it, nor does it mean that we should allow ourselves to be bullied
by questionable science and its "experts".
13
Feb 3, 07:45 PM #
Nik Mistler says:
A few years ago a book entitled "The Population Bomb" implied
everything we are seeing now. Without attention to an early
stabilization, and subsequent reduction, of the human population we
are condemned to a continuing degradation of the planet.
14
Feb 3, 09:40 PM #
dave says:
One thing people miss is the RATE at which the warming is occurring,
not whether it is occuring. This link
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
to NOAA shows this trend. The RATE is greater now than ever in
recorded history. It is exponential and coincides with the beginning
of the industrial revolution. When discussing global warming, we must
recognize that the scientists of the world are reporting documented
peer-reviewed observations from all over the world (not beliefs or
opinions) taken with the most sophisticated equipment in existence
since the beginning of the history of the human race and it is highly
unlikely that they are wrong in their reporting of the resulting data.
If anyone has any question as to how much (or even if) puny human
activity affects the earth's environment; the next time they drive
their car to the store several miles, they should try pushing it back
home to observe how much energy it takes to move that much mass - and
then think about how much energy it must take to move 1000's of jet
airliners (they are really heavy I've never tried to pick one up but I
know they are really heavy - a scientist would weigh it before he or
she would even dare say it is really heavy) 1000's of miles every day.
Yes, we humans may be puny, but the things we use are not. Another
thing people miss is the difference between belief, opinion,
observation and fact. A person's statement has validity to another
depending on how each individual defines these words. Some equate
opinion, and belief to fact and this can do nothing but promote
argument with no resolution. Others will continue to reject facts and
reports of observations from others as non-truths, even when presented
with evidence to the contrary right before their eyes.
15
Feb 4, 06:20 AM #
Don H. says:
Dave, (entry 14) You bring up some valid points, and your last one
needs more emphasis... You are correct to point out the difference
between belief, opinion, observation and fact BUT - the problem here
is that even the best of scientists with proven data, must somehow
convey this to others, and his(or her) best efforts to do this will
still inevitably show their feelings or opinions about the data they
are presenting. Add second or third person reporting of the
scientist's findings, and there is already a noticeable "spin" to the
information. No one is immune to this, and it happens even without
trying, so it can truly be difficult to sort it all out. So your last
sentence is quite true, and yet your text includes your opinion as
well as fact. My personal opinion on the overall subject is that we do
have global warming, partially due to the natural cycle and partially
due to human activities. Just how much can be credited to either is
debateable. Either way, we should all give our very best to conserve
energy, recycle as much as possible and be better stewards of the
earth's resources; this is the responsible thing to do. And yes, there
is alot a single puny individual can do in this regard.
Feb 4, 06:55 AM #
Deborah Byrd says:
I think sometimes people expect too much of scientists. They are not
all-knowing. They are trying very hard to figure out what's going on
today with respect to Earth's climate. But science is not perfect, and
our knowledge of natural systems is bound to be imperfect as well.
Also, like all people considered as a group (like all of us commenting
on this post), scientists are individuals, and so they sometimes agree
and sometimes disagree with each other. It could not be otherwise ...
That's why it's important, when trying to decide what you think about
the global warming issue, to look at compilations of the work of many
scientists. It's good to look not just at ONE study, but at long-term
reviews of hundreds of studies. The most recent such review was
announced on Friday, Feb. 2 by the IPCC ... Intergovernmental Panal on
Climate Change ... 800 scientists in 130 countries looking at climate
change over a five-year period.
News about that study is all over the web this weekend ... Earth & Sky's
article about it is here.
16
Feb 4, 08:30 AM #
stevenearlsalmony says:
Dear Friends,
Despite the incontrovertible element of uncertainty and other
limitations of scientific methods, I do think we can implicitly assume
that science plays a vital role by providing humankind with the best
knowledge of the way the world in which we live actually works and of
the placement of humankind within the natural order of living things.
At least to me, science is one of God's greatest gifts to humanity. If
the human species is guided by the best available, good science, I
have no doubt that we will respond ably to whatsoever challenges are
presented to us.
While I do not want to oversimply what looks like a formidable human
predicament looming potentially before humanity, I have complete
confidence in science and in the capability of the human species to be
guided by it to a good enough life for our children and coming
generations.
It is our task in life to do not more, or less, than find through
science that which is somehow true about our species and the world in
which we live. Denying "what is" could be perilous because whatsoever
is is, is it not?
Science is imperfect and we with "feet of clay" are imperfect;
nevertheless, it remains our certain responsibility to embrace science
as perfectly as we are able and to accept the directions it
explicitedly provides us.
Always,
Steve
17
Feb 4, 10:12 AM #
Jason Weir says:
I have to agree the climate is changing. I also believe that the
warming caused by humans is simply a side-effect of overpopulation and
technology. Sure, human caused emissions contribute to warming, but
consider what has lead to these emissions. It's the booming population
on Earth and the industrial revolution.
It's not the animals at the zoo dumping chemicals into the oceans and
rivers it's always people doing it as a means to some selfish end. It
doesn't matter if you consider it "survival" because the outcome is
still the same. The Earth has a finite amount of space and resources.
Even if we were able to stop all emissions today the problem of an
ever increasing world population would still threaten human existence
for these reasons.
If we view the planet as a living being, humans are nothing more than
parasites feeding on available resources until the host can no longer
supply them. There is only so much food in the refrigerator so to
speak.
Many people in the world are selfish and are waiting for someone else
to make the sacrifice so they won't have to change their lifestyle. Is
this human nature? If so, we are doomed. Some believe that technology
will solve all the problems when technology is partly the reason for
the problem in the first place.
The end of human life on does not mean all life on Earth will cease to
exist, just that all the people here will be gone. Maybe nature has a
way to evict its negligent tenants after all. http://
www.earthsky.org/article/50989/20-scientists-speak
Bawana
The man is fucking brilliant.
Dave Nalle has worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer,
a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and a history professor.
He now designs fonts for a living and lives with his family in
a pimped-out duck blind just outside Austin. You can find his
writings on politics and culture at The Elitist Pig http://
www.elitistpig.com/ and his writings about fonts,
art and graphic design at The Scriptorium.
Global Warming: "The Debate is Over"
Written by Dave Nalle
Published February 04, 2007
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/04/070753.php
It all comes together in a great and glorious crescendo of righteous
certainty that global warming is here to stay, humans are responsible
for it, and the United States is the unmasked pantomime villain in the
great climatological morality play.
Where there is disagreement and where the debate actually does
continue, ...is over the issue of what role human causation
plays in global climate change.
To actually stop or reverse climate change might require
the total destruction of industrial civilization as well
as the extermination of at least half the human
population. Virtually no lesser methods could reverse
changes which have been building for hundreds of years.
The IPCC, which leads the charge on global climate change,
works under the auspices of the United Nations.
They are charged to provide "abalanced reporting of existing
viewpoints," yet their sources are restricted solely to those who
support the theory of human agency in global climate change.
Their methodology is inherently unscientific, because they rule
out of consideration any research with results which don't
conform to their expected results.
Even more than all of this, these climate scientists have an inherent
motivation of self-interest in promoting global warming, because if
we're in a climate crisis then we need more climate research, and we
need to fund more climate research projects, and we need
more university faculties in climatology. Climatologists, then,
become more important and better funded and have more job choices,
because they are the prophets who will show us the way out of our
predicament.
Believing them when they tell us there's a climate crisis is rather
like believing the military when they tell us that the best solution
to our international problems is to invade everyone. Like any
profession, the marketplace rewards productivity, and in this case
producing a worldwide crisis is enormously rewarding for them.
Perhaps the best defense against these
Bawana
> http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/04/070753.php
>
> Well written with what appears to be valid points
> and things to consider.
>
> Ok, forget about AGW for a moment. Do you or do
> you not believe that the "Other" products
> associated with CO2 in such things as vehicle
> emissions and coal powered power plant emissions
> etc are currently (not sometime in the future)
> injurious to one's health? Personally, I
> wonder if the "Other" health effects are more
> important than the AGW issue. What are your
> opinions about air pollution in general?
Pollution is bad.
It's being/been/will continue to be addressed.
Exponential achievements have been made in the last 30 years.
Nobody is screaming for less efficiency/more pollution.
I wish my Dodge 2fiddy 4X4 427 V8 got 1000 MPG.
EPA, GE, GM, Muir, Thoreau, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the
Earth, Gaia, James Lovelock, blah, blah, blah...
What up in drilling technology?
Light years away from 30 years ago?
Has science hit a wall?
I don't think so.
CO2 should not be classified as a pollutant.
That's all the enviro-nuts REALLY bring to the table.
That's their admission ticket to real science.
It's a fraud.
lkgeo1
Members Committed to Energy Independence Introduce Hydrogen
Legislation
Washington, D.C. - Today, Congressmen Lee Terry (R-NE), Mike Doyle (D-
PA), Zach Wamp (R-TN), and Albert Wynn (D-MD) introduced bipartisan
legislation to promote the widespread adoption of hydrogen fuel cell
technology.
This legislation would extend the current federal tax credit on fuel
cell equipment through 2013 and provide a tax credit for hydrogen fuel
consumed in energy conversion.
Congressmen Terry, Doyle, Wamp, and Wynn believe that enactment of
these tax credits would help accelerate the commercial adoption of
these technologies and the growth of the hydrogen economy - which, in
turn, would help reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and
our dependence on foreign oil.
The Congressmen made the following statements:
TERRY: "Fuel cell technology has many different applications - from
emergency backup generators at hospitals and police stations to a
pollution-free replacement for gasoline and diesel engines in cars,
buses, and trucks. Fuel cell technology promises to reduce the number
of large new power plants and transmission lines we need to build by
allowing the distributed generation of electricity across the country.
In addition, fuel cell technology provides important emergency backup
power generation capability for first responders and our military.
That's why Congressman Doyle and I established the House Distributed
Generation Caucus - to promote this important new technology."
DOYLE: "Hydrogen fuel cell technology holds tremendous potential for
allowing Americans to be more responsible stewards of our environment.
It also offers us a way to reduce our dependence on oil from violent
and politically unstable parts of the world by providing a reliable,
affordable alternative to the internal combustion engine - and a more
efficient way of utilizing the hydrocarbons we do consume. These tax
credits would develop enough private-sector demand for fuel cell
technology to establish the economies of scale necessary for fuel
cells to become economically viable alternatives for electricity
generation and vehicle propulsion. These incentives will get fuel cell
technology over the sole remaining obstacle to its widespread adoption
- the cost of expanding production and establishing a fuel cell
infrastructure across the country."
WYNN: "Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies offer a long-term solution
to America's addiction to foreign oil. We know the technology exists
today and is being demonstrated in a variety of applications: from 1)
passenger buses to 2) forklifts powered by hydrogen fuel cells to 3)
auxiliary power units for trucks and RVs. In order to increase large
scale commercialization of existing and future technologies, we must
provide incentives and create a roadmap for the hydrogen economy. This
bill creates a ground-breaking tax incentive to encourage businesses
to use hydrogen for power generation. Furthermore, I intend to
reintroduce a bill that will establish a Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Commission, which will identify key obstacles to progress and devise a
plan for success. At a time when we should be promoting independence
from oil and fast tracking alternatives, the U.S. now has a record
dependence on foreign oil, which has climbed to a staggering 65
percent. This is unacceptable. Accordingly, our legislation creates a
necessary incentive for the commercialization of critical hydrogen and
fuel cell technologies - bringing us one step closer to the reality of
an emissions-free hydrogen economy."
WAMP: "Alternative energy sources are the nexus between our
environment, economy, and homeland security. This legislation
exemplifies the bipartisan effort to become energy independent so that
we can rely less on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela while we
increase domestic production of cleaner and more reliable energy
sources to drive our own economy."
This legislation would extend the current federal tax credit for 30
percent of expenditures on fuel cell equipment (up to $1000 per
kilowatt) through 2013. It would also provide a tax credit for 30
percent of the cost of hydrogen fuel consumed in energy conversion per
year (up to $1500 per energy conversion device, whether it be a fuel
cell or internal combustion engine).
Congressmen Terry, Doyle, and Wynn are on the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over federal energy and
environmental policies. As Co-chair of the House Hydrogen and Fuel
Cell Caucus, Congressman Wynn has been active for a number of years in
developing and promoting the commercialization of energy technologies
which increase the efficiency, affordability, and reliability of our
domestic energy supply.
Bill Summary:
Terry-Doyle Hydrogen Fuel Cell Commercialization Act
110th Congress
Section-by-Section Summary and Analysis
First section - Establishes a 30 percent federal tax credit for
hydrogen fuel in order to help with the rising cost of hydrogen fuel
and encourage long-term investment in hydrogen energy-conversion
devices (fuel cells). The tax credit would go to the business or
individual who is purchasing the hydrogen for use in the power
generation unit. This change is needed because a tax credit for
hydrogen fuel use does not currently exist. This tax incentive will
help keep hydrogen competitive as a fuel.
Second section - Extends the current 30 percent tax credit for fuel
cells (which is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008) until
December 31, 2013. Extending the credit is essential for encouraging
purchases of this technology in the coming years.
Third section - Requires fuel cell-powered backup electricity for all
new government buildings. This backup fuel cell power generator would
also supply power to the building during peak demand hours. The bill
also requires the General Services Administration, the federal agency
responsible for building most federal buildings and facilities, to
consider using fuel cell-powered electricity to meet the base power
needs of all new government buildings. The federal government is the
nation's largest landlord. Requiring the federal government to utilize
fuel cells will dramatically expand the market for this technology,
allowing economies of scale and bringing down the cost of fuel cells
for private sector purchases.
Fourth section - Provides funding to the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DoT) for the agency to issue regulations for the
storage and transportation of hydrogen fuel. A lack of funding has
kept DoT from devising and implementing education programs for
hydrogen fuel storage and transport. The widespread national use of
hydrogen fuel cannot take place without greater DoT outreach and
education efforts. This will give the DoT the resources it needs to
work with the states, private entities and other government entities
in order to provide a smooth transition to a hydrogen economy.
http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?159628
Paul E. Lehmann
Please tell me about the "New" technology" in
drilling technology and being light years away
from 30 years ago. I spent most of my
professional career as a Petroleum Geologist.
I would be happy to discuss it with you.
>
> Has science hit a wall?
> I don't think so.
You are correct it hasn't hit a wall, if fact, the
new technology is CREATING jobs in the
environmental field and not destroying jobs.
>
> CO2 should not be classified as a pollutant.
>
> That's all the enviro-nuts REALLY bring to the
> table.
I do not think that is the case.
>
> That's their admission ticket to real science.
>
> It's a fraud.
Calm down a little and perhaps we can reach
agreement on a few things.
Cleopatra_Enterprise_Institute-Queen_of-DeNile
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paul - I think you're talking to a brick wall when you talk about
reaching agreement on any kind of middle ground with Bawana, or to
whoever is really behind the screen name Bawana.
I'm partisan enough on the side of the AGW people, God knows.
But Bawana on the subject of AGW is a total "true believer," or "true
disbeliever." He's consistently taking a stance that is totally
against the idea that CO2 emissions could possibly be a cause of
problematic climate change, and he's utterly committed to villifying
anyone who suggests that it is.
If Bawana isn't actually in the employ of the fossil fuel industry,
which is possible, he really ought to be, because he'll cheerfully
engage in the character assassination of anyone voicing a serious
dissent from the fossil fuel party line.
Go look at some of his archived post if you need verification of
this.
It's possible, of course, that even a biased and unreasonable person
will be correct on some questions, some of the time. So it's remotely
conceivable that Bawana might turn out to be right on AGW, while all
the scientists who have contributed to the mainstream view on AGW are
proven wrong. What seems to be impossible, though, is that "Bawana"
-- at least as an internet entity -- will ever take a reasonable and
unbiased approach to anything.
Unless, of course, the whole persona here is only a useful role to
play, for some reasonably skilled PR person for the oil or coal
industry. And at least at this point, the persona is being portrayed
as demanding unconditional surrender from the other side on the
subject of AGW.
You write "calm down" to the entity, as if the person on the other end
of the communication link is actually amenable to reason. But based
on my interactions with Bawana and/or Bawana's handler, i think the
person at the other end is either a real person in a permanent anti-
environmental rage, or just as likely, a cynic who is rather coldly
attempting to manipulate the Internet forums to reach a predetermied
result on the subject of CO2 and climate change. In either case, I
doubt if the person you're trying to communicate with has any
intention of being open to reason or to compromise, ever.
Of course if compromise on the subject of CO2 emissions becomes
inevitable, as I imagine it will, the economic and professional
interests of many people who are now implacably opposed to the
mainstream AGW science may change. When that happens, I wouldn't be
surprised to see Bawana disappear, or suddenly become much more
reasonable. But for now -- no.
Bawana
I'm asking you.
Hence the question marks.
> I spent most of my
> professional career as a Petroleum Geologist.
> I would be happy to discuss it with you.
Hmmmmm, could that be why I asked you?
> > Has science hit a wall?
> > I don't think so.
>
> You are correct it hasn't hit a wall, if fact, the
> new technology is CREATING jobs in the
> environmental field and not destroying jobs.
What type of jobs are being created in the "environmental field"
because of the new technology?
> > CO2 should not be classified as a pollutant.
> > That's all the enviro-nuts REALLY bring to the
> > table.
>
> I do not think that is the case.
And I see you didn't bother making your case...
> > That's their admission ticket to real science.
>
> > It's a fraud.
>
> Calm down a little and perhaps we can reach
> agreement on a few things.
I'm calm. Your turn:
Should CO2 be classified as a pollutant?
kdt...@yahoo.com
<fernbach2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 10:45 pm, "Paul E. Lehmann" <some...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
humans do not cause global warming. Careful studies of ice cores
proves that there is natural fulctuation in CO2 levels. These CO2
levels recorded in the ice are often higher during warming trends that
are also recorded in the ice. But the correlation is not there that
must be if the higher CO2 concentrations were causing the warming. The
higher CO2 is a result of the warming. The levels of CO2 are sometimes
up to 7 times higher than the temperature increase predicted by
radiative forcing.
Just another point, that when this case comes to the criminal
courtroom, for the prosecution of those who by fraudulent science,
seek to affect the lives and the economies of the free society of the
US, will be a direct and provable point to show their criminal fraud.
On your way to prison, you guys can still keep whining that it is the
fossil fuel industry that just wants to keep on polluting, that have
brought the case against you and convicted you of these serious
crimes.
You assholes only use this for propaganda. So when the valid
scientists argue against you, you can instill the idea in the people
that do not understand the science, that it is only corruption that
argues against you.
Often, it is very dangerous to believe your own lies. Something you
twits of AGW will someday learn, (who are mostly from well to do
families) that have seated yourself in the 'science communtiy', and
have no empathy for the poor and middle class that would suffer under
the impostition of the needless controls of CO2.
In the meantime, climatology is not a science. It is a field of
statistical gathering of temperatures, and the attempt to find
correlative patterns none of which can be subjected to science which
is the determination of cause and effect. It should be relisted as a
philosophy.
Who cares what a consensus of these rejects from mathematics, physics
and chemistry aggrees upon?????
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
kdt...@yahoo.com
> Bawana wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 10:39 am, "Paul E. Lehmann"
> > <some...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Has science hit a wall?
> > I don't think so.
>
> You are correct it hasn't hit a wall, if fact, the
> new technology is CREATING jobs in the
> environmental field and not destroying jobs.
We've determined an asteroid is coming and is going to hit your house.
Therefore we are sending a crew over to dismantle your house and move
it a few miles over. We will send you the bill. You should be happy
though, since this will be creating jobs in the house relocation
field.
Bawana
<fernbach2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> blah, blah, blah ...
> Of course if compromise on the subject of CO2 emissions becomes
> inevitable,
Why compromise with frauds?
Your collective asses needs to be spanked and sent home to yo' mommas.
> as I imagine it will,
Sure, you'll compromise on your fraud...
You'll get something for nothing.
Exxon Creams on Death-Rag
> proves that there is natural fulctuation in CO2 levels. These CO2
> families) that have seated yourself in the 'science communtiy', and
> and chemistry aggrees upon?????
>
> Deatherage
Death-Rag said: fulctuation 'science communtiy' aggrees