GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE 11-22-09
9511-22-09 NYTimes--The Senate's Duty on Climate Change
- Senate Duty on Climate Change NYT Editorial
Our candidate for criticism is the U.S.Senate. We can't rewrite the Bush years or persuade the Chinese of the merits of a binding treaty. What the U.S. can do is assume responsibility for its own emissions, and this the Senate has failed to do.
11-20-09 Andrew Revkin in the NYTimes--Hacked Emails add Fuel to Warming Debate
- Hacked Emails Add Fuel to Warming Controversy
Hundreds of private e-mail messages hacked from a server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.
11-17-09 Environmental Abuse--biting the hand that feeds us--Laura du Toit on Hubpages.com
- Environmental Abuse - Biting The Hand That Feeds Us
Environmental abuse is inexcusable - it is the proverbial biting the hand that feeds us. Abuse occurs when the abuser violates the personal boundaries of their victims. The motivation for doing so is to...
11-14-09 NY Times World leaders Agree to Kick the Can Down the Road
- World Leaders Punt on Climate Change
President Obama and other world leaders put off reaching a climate change agreement next month in Copenhagen, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the conference to reach a politically binding" agreement to defer key issues into the future.
11-9-09 NYTIMES No clear Democrat map for energy plan
- No Clear Democrat Energy Plan
Congress is unlikely to soon establish the cap and trade system for curbing carbon emissions that Mr. Obama and party leaders seek. Nor are world leaders at a climate conference in Copenhagen likely to strike a concrete deal to limit emissions.
Lord Monkeyton British Right-wing Looney
Monckton, Wiki entry
- Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized Monckton's arguments, labelling them "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."[12] In response, Monckton argued that he "got the science right"
11-2-09 NY Times Gore Puts His Money Where His Mouth Is
- Blood and Gore in London
Critics, mostly on the political right and global warming skeptics, say Gore is poised to become the worlds first carbon billionaire, profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to his business ventures.
11-1-09 A Conservative's Perspective on Climate Change
- Climate Change Treaty a Precursor to Global Government? by Chuck Baldwin
If the elected magistrates in Washington don't grow some backbone resistance will be forced on the U.S. because it's not possible for the burden on the backs of American people to be sustained without the surrender of independence and loss of liberty
The Conservatives Weigh in on Climate Change, Health Care, Autism,etc.
10-19-09 NYTimes Fossil Fuels' Hidden Cost in Billions
- Burning Coal and Oil Brings Billions in Health Costs
WASHINGTON Burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution, the National Academy of Sciences reported in a study issued Monday.
10-17-09 NY Times Dissention in the Ranks of Energy Producers on Climate Bill
- Energy Industry Splits on Climate Proposal
WASHINGTON As the Senate prepares to tackle global warming, the nations energy producers, once united, are battling one another over policy decisions worth hundreds of billions of dollars in coming decades.
10-15-09 NYTimes Curbing Climate Change by Sealing Natural Gas Leaks
- Sealing Natural Gas Leaks to Curb Global Warming
Three trillion cubic ft of methane leak into the air every year, with Russia and the U. S. the leading sources, according to the Environmental Protection Agencys official estimate. (This amount has the warming power from half the U.S. coal plants.
10-14 NYTimes Biggest Obstacle to Climate Deal is How to Pay for It.
- Biggest Obstacle to Copenhagen Climate Deal--How to Pay for It?
As world leaders struggle to hash out a new global climate deal by December, they face a hurdle perhaps more formidable than getting big polluters like the United States and China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: how to pay for the new accord.
10-13-09 NYTimes--A More Immediate Downside to Coal Fired Electric Power
- Another reason to stop building coal fired electric power plants
Cleaner air came at a cost. Each day since the equipment was switched on, the company has dumped thousands of gallons of wastewater containing chemicals from the scrubbing process into the Monongahela R., which provides drinking water for Pittsburgh.
10-11-09 Bipartisan Support for Dealing with Climate Change
- John Kerry and Lindsay Graham Support Climate Change Measures
The U.S. can lead the world in addressing climate change. We've found a framework for legislation for a clean-energy future that will revitalize the economy,protect jobs and create new ones, safeguard national security and reduce pollution.
10-2-09 NYT Editorial On Obama Climate Change Goals
- Obama and U.S. Congress on Climate Change
But by endorsing regulation, Mr. Obama is leaving no doubt that he will do what it takes to protect the environment. It also means that if Congress fails, his negotiators wont go to Copenhagen with an empty suitcase.
9-27-09 Cassandras of Climate Paul Krugman in the NYT
- Cassandras of Climate--It's Later Than You Think! Krugman
Some changes, like a decline in Arctic Sea ice, are happening much faster than expected. Partly its growing evidence that feedback loops amplifying the effects of man-made greenhouse gas emissions are stronger than previously realized.
9-25-09 Joe Conason in Salon--Conservatives Believe in Global Warming
- Look -- conservatives who believe in global warming! | Salon
And they're doing something about it. Too bad they live in Europe. Why can't we have smarter right-wingers?
9-7-09 NY Times Natural Gas Hits a Roadblock in Congress
- Natural Gas versus Coal and Global Warming
The natural gas industry had a winning streak recently with huge new reserves, low prices encouraging utilities to substitute gas for coal, and cities are buying buses fueled by natural gas. But its luck has run out in Congress over global warming.
7-30-09 Links to Recent Articles on Climate by NYT Reporter Kate Galbraith
- Link to Recent NYT Articles on Climate
Here are links to several recent NYT articles by Kate Galbraith. The most recent one says a 23% energy savings can be achieved by 2020 through application of energy saving technology to homes and commercial buildings.
7-1-09 Ten Outrageous Climate Change Claims
10 Outrageous Claims
As the House debate heated up, so did the hyperbole.
We already knew that climate action opponents were, shall we say, special.
They've spent years denying the reality of global warming and doing everything possible to delay action. But, last week's floor debate put their tortured reasoning in the Congressional Record.
We've compiled 10 of the most outrageous comments from the floor last week.
Yes, they're bizarre. But, it's important to keep in mind that we are very likely to see much more of this as the bill moves to the Senate.
10 Outrageous Claims
10) "Wake up, America. There hasn't been any global warming, which is what we heard over and over and over again – there hasn't been any global warming for 10 years." – Rep. Dana Rohrabacker (R-CA)
No warming for 10 years? Well, not exactly true. 1998 was the 2nd hottest year on record while 2008 was only the 8th hottest. So, if you only look at those two years, you might assume there hasn't been any warming. But, 2005 was the hottest year on record and the warmest decade on record is 1998 through 2008. The trends are clear. The planet is warming. Period.
9) "You want to talk about a massive new welfare program for energy? It's in here too… It's a whole new welfare program for energy." – Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)
If you want to talk welfare, what about the hundreds of billions the oil, gas and coal industries have received in subsidies and tax breaks over the years?
8) "God has put us on this Earth as responsible stewards of these resources, and we ought to use them responsibly. This bill does not do it. In fact, it does nothing good. The only meaningful thing that it might do is provide a relatively meaningless photo op for our President in December in Copenhagen as he stands to brag about what America has done while the leaders of India and China laugh at us behind his back." – Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX)
We look forward to working with Rep. Conaway to strengthen this bill and to fight for the strongest possible international global warming treaty later this year.
7) "Energy producing states like Oklahoma will be economically punished and devastated." – Rep Tom Cole (R-OK)
Rep. Cole should have a look at climate models showing that Oklahoma could spend nearly the entire summer with 100+ temperatures by the end of the century. Talk about devastating.
6) "We should not be the first lemming to jump off the cliff." – Rep. Doc Hasting (R-WA)
That's an interesting point given that the U.S. is the only industrial country in the world that never ratified the Kyoto global warming treaty and that much of Europe is operating under a carbon cap right now.
5) "[For some, this bill is an] economic death sentence." – Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
As opposed to the current economy in which we are held hostage by our reliance on foreign oil and in which only last summer we saw gas prices exceed $4/gallon.
4) "The whole point of cap-and-trade is to make fossil fuels, or 85 percent of the energy we consume, more expensive." – Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
No, the point of this bill is to cap global warming pollution, put Americans back to work building out our clean energy future, and free us from our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
3) "Do you want to throw away the economic prosperity for nothing, because that's what this bill does. And for what, to satisfy the twisted desires of radical environmentalists." – Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)
With millions of Americans out of work and the economy in recession, it might not be the best time to talk about "throwing away our economic prosperity" or to support the status quo.
2) "[This will bring us back to] hunting and gathering." – Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
Yeah, when we look at solar panels, hybrids and windmills, that's exactly what comes to mind – hunting and gathering societies.
1) "The idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax… We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it’s a hoax!" – Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)
A global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists taking tens of thousands of measurements on everything ranging from ice core samples to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to sea level rise, hundreds of governments around the world working to address global warming pollution, dozens of science academies that have endorsed the reality of global warming and urged action, as well as hundreds of millions of people around the world who have joined the movement to promote global warming action.
And, we're all coordinating our activities to push this hoax because…?
Posted: 30-Jun-2009; Updated: 01-Jul-2009
Sea Level Rise Likely to Be Greatest in Northeast--NY. Times 5-28-09
- Sea Level Rise Likely Greatest in Northeast U.S. and Canada Maritimes
Scientists are predicting that if the melting of Greenland’s ice sheets continues to accelerate, they say, sea levels will rise even more in the northeastern U.S. and the Canada Maritimes than in other parts of the world.
3-29-09 M.I.T. Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change Updated Integrated Global System Model
The M.I.T. global climate model tracks and predicts climate change from 1861-2100. Its revised projection indicates that if we stick with business as usual, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, average surface temperatures on 'Earth by 2100 will hit levels far beyond anything humans have ever experienced.
"In our mor recent global model simulations the ocean heat-uptake is slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker, feedbacks from teh land system as temperature rises are stronger, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower. Not one of these effects is very strong on its own, and even adding each separately together would not fully explain the higher temperatures but rather than interacting additively, these different effects appear to interact multiplicatively, with feedbacks among the contributing factors leading to the surprisingly large increase in the chance of much higher temperatures."
Quoted from Thomas L. Friedman's op-ed in the NYTimes 3-29-09.
ClimateWorks CEO Hal Harvey's Five Global Warming Policies
Hal Harvey:
There are five policies that can help us win the energy-climate battle and each has been proven somewhere.
1. Building codes: California's energy-efficient building and appliance codes now save Californians $6 billion per year.
2. Better vehicle fuel efficiency standards: The European Union's fuel efficiency fleet average for new cars now stands at 41 MPG, and is rising steadily.
3. National renewable portfolio standard mandating that power utilities produce 15 or 20 percent of their energy from renewables by 2020.
4. Decoupling--the program begun in California that turns the utility business on its head. Under decoupling, power utilities make money by helping homeowners save energy rather than by encouraging them to comsume it.
5. Put a price on carbon. Polluting the atmosphere can't be free.
From an Op-ed by Thomas L. Friedman in the NYTimes 3-29-09.
Climatologist Calls for Action NYT article by Andrew Revkin 7-23-08
- Climatologist James Hansen Calls for Action
Twenty years ago James Hansen, a climate scientist at NASA shook Washington and the world by telling a Senate hearing that he was 99% sure that humans were already warming the climate.
5-20-08 New Government Report Warns of Warming Effects
A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming, Andrew Revkin in the NYTimes 4-6-08
A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming
With recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing chorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it will be too little and come too late...
"If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people." Jeffrey Sachs.
What is needed,Mr. Sachs and others say is the development of radically advanced low-carbon technologies, which they say will only come about with greatly increased spending by determined governments on what has so far been an anemic commitment to research and development. A Manhattan-like project, so to speak.
Here's a link to Andrew Revkin's article which will bring you up to date on the latest thinking on global warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/weekinreview/06revkin.html?scp=2&sq=andrew+c.+revkin&st=nyt
NEW YORK TIMES FORUM ON GLOBAL WARMING
Here are a couple of good links on global warming--a NYTimes discussion forum which and a link to previous NYT articles on climate change.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/science/earth/25energyforum.html
ttp://whww.nytimes.com/ref/science/earth/energy.html The Energy Challenge
11-29 U.S. SUPREME COURT TAKES UP GLOBAL WARMING CASE
Supreme Court Meltdown Over Global Warming
http://www.slate.com/id/2154622
11-27 WHAT YOU CAN EASILY DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING--UNPLUG YOUR CELL PHONE CHARGER AND OTHER SIMPLE ACTIONS. HERE: http://www.slate.com/id/2151798
11-25 TAMING KING COAL nytimes lead editorial
The fron page of this newspaper's business section recently featured two articles about the world's most plentiful fuel, coal. Written from different parts of the globe, they framed the magnitude of the task confronting international negotiators and the newly empowered Democrats in Congress who want to put the brakes on emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas.
One article pointed out that China will surpass the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide by 2000, a decade ahead of previous predictions. A big reason is the explosion in the number of automobiles, but the main reason is China's ravenous appetite for coal, the dirtiest of all fuels, to produce electricity. Already, China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined. Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China, with enough capacity to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego. What's frightening about this for those worried about the long-term consequences of warming is that nearly all of these plants are being built along traditional lines, burning pulverized coal to make electricity. And what's sad about it is that there's a much cleaner coal-burning technology available. Known as IGCC--for integrated gasification combined cycle--this cleaner technology converts coal into a gas before it is burned.
These plants produce fewer of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than conventional power plants do. More important, from a global warming perspective, they also have the potential to capture and sequester greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide before they enter the atmosphere.
This new technology is not readily available in China, but it is available to utilities in the U.S. Which brings us to the second article--an announcement by TXU, a giant Texas energy company, that it intends to build 11 new coal-fired power plants in Texas, plus another dozen or so elsewhere in the country. All told, this would be the nation's largest single coal-oriented construction campaign in years.
Is TXU availing itself of the cleaner technology? No. TXU will use the old pulverized coal model. The company says the older models are more reliable. But the real reason it likes the older models is that they are easier to build, cheaper to run and, ultimately, much more profitable. So, like the Chinese, TXU is locking itself (and the country) into at least 50 more years of the most carbon-intensive technology around.
BArbara Boxer, the California Democrat who will shortly assume command of the Senate environment committee, believes tht we should impose a price on carbon emissions (as Europe has done) so that companies like TXU will begin to think about investing in cleaner technologies--technologies that China could lthen use in its power plants. The message from both Texas and China is that Ms. Boxer should get cracking.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/opinion/25sat1.html
Comment: Global warming is not a scientific problem. The science is pretty well settled, both the causes and remedies for for warming. The real problem is a political problem--informing public opinion and mobilizing the support and cooperation necessary to do what is needed here and around the world. The United States should be leading this effort, not dragging its feet. Write your Congressman!
11-20 United Nations conference on global warming ends with modest accomplishments. The conference was attended by 6,000 representatives from around the world. A letter signed by Barbara Boxer, Jeff Bingaman and Joseph Lieberman stating that Democrats in January would begin a push for strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions. However, Paula Dobrianski, top U.S. delegate to the conference stood firm on the Bush position that the best approach was for voluntary partnerships between developing and wealthy countries that promote economic growth while limiting pollution. The Kyoto protocol, which the U.S. has not signed expires in 2012.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/18/science/18warming.html
11-19 Harnessing the the wind to power ski resorts is a new trend.
My intention for this hub is to provide links to articles on global warming and, if anyone's interested, to get a discussion going among believers and skeptics. The first article linked below reports on a recent study that says that "Global warming gases traped in the soil are bubbling out of the thawing permafrost in amounts far higher than previously thourght and may trigger what researchers warn is a climate time bomb
"Methane--a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide--is being released from Arctic permafrost at a rate five times faster than thought, according to a study published today in the journal 'Nature'..."
My own belief is that mounting evidence of global warming is sufficient to justify using a significant amount of resources in an effort to reduce the rate of warming. However, I'll try to include credible evidence and opinions to the contrary along with studies supporting the conclusion that we should be worrying more than we are about the future of our planet.
11-7 A review of five new books on global warming one of which scare your pants off! http://hubpages.com/hub/How_Close_to_Catastrophe_Five_Books_on_Global_Warming
11-7 TEXAS UTILITY PLANS 11 DIRTY COAL-FIRED PLANTS, IGNORING GLOBAL WARMING CONCERNS
Ignoring global warming issues, TXU Corp, open-pit coal mine and electric utility company, is embarking on the nation's single largest coal-oriented electric power plant construction campaign. TXU plans to add more than 9,000 megawatts fo new capacity, an increase of 3.5% in coal-fired electric power capacity. Even as some utility executives are joining environmentalists in supporting controls on carbon emissions, TXU is betting $10 billion on 11 new coal power plants that will produce huge amounts of global warming gases for decades to come. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/business/07coal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
11-2 HARVARD SCIENTISTS WEIGH IN ON ETHANOL IN AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "THE ETHANOL ILLUSION" BY MICHAEL B. MCELROY. http://harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110634.html
10-21
SOLAR POWER--AN INNOVATIVE AND PRACTICAL INNOVATION ADOPTED BY GENERAL MOTORS AND OTHERS
General Motors liked the idea of using the sun to power its buildings. But until recently, one immutable economic fact held GM back. the upfront costs were simply too high to justify the ultimate payoff.
GM is not alone. Even solar energy's biggest fans concede that the high investment costs have kept companies from pursuing what is arguably the cleanest, most renewable and least politically sensitive energy source around.
But now, GM and a small but growing number of other companies and municpalities are getting solar energy from systems installed by others. Even though the installations are righty on their own roofs, they buy the electricity much as they would from a utilitiy's grid. And because the companies that paid for the systems will get a steady income, the can provide power from the sun at competitive electricity rates.
The complete NY Times article by Claudia Deutsch is linked here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/business/21solar.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
10-08
"Clearly there is an emerging consensus among economists--left and right--that the nation would be better off, geopolitically and economically if Americans used less gasoline. The most economically sound, if not the most politically popular, way to accomplish this would be to increase gasoline taxes.
Average gasoline taxes per Gallon
August 2006
Britain..........$4.24
Germany........3.99
France............3.80
Italy..................3.75
Japan.............2.07
Canada..........1.03
U.S.....................40
[A 10-8-06 "Economic View" by Daniel Gross in the NYT is linked below.]
9-15 CALIFORNIA STIFFS POLLUTING ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
California has just delivered a new message to electric energy suppliers: If you cannot produce power with the lowest possible emissions of these greenhouse gases, we are not interested. [For more, see link below.]
9-15 Oslo, Polar Bears Drown, Islands Appear Due to Arctic Thaw [Link below.]
9-18 You heard it here first. Republicans get ready for a Bush U-turn on global warming. A policy change is rumored to be in the works. See link below.
9-21. BRITISH SCIENCE GROUP SAYS EXXON MISREPRESENTS CLIMATE ISSUES
"A British scientific group, the Royal Society, contends that Exxon Mobil is spreading 'innacurate and misleading' information about climate change and is financing groups that misinform the public on the issue.
"The Royal Society, a 1400-member organization that dates back to the 1600s and has counted Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, asked Exxon Mobil in a letter this month to stop financing these groups and to change its public reports to reflect more accurately the opinions fo scientists on the issue.
"There is a 'false sense somehow that there is a two-sided debate going on in the scientific community' about the origins of climate change, said Bob Ward, the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society.
"The reality is that 'thousands and thousands' of scientists around the world agree that climate change is linked to greenhouse gases, he said, with 'one or two professional contrarians' who disagree."
[NYTimes article by Heather Timmons linked below.]
9-21--GLOBAL WARMING A SUBJECT FOR DIRECTORS AT BIG COMPANIES
"If corporate directors really understood the implications of global warming, would they steer their companies toward preventing it?...
"'Climate change is no longer the purview of scientists only,' said Jmes James Gustave Speth, dean of the Yale School of lForestry and Environm ental Studies. 'The widespread ramifications of unchecked climate change require that more leaders in our society understand its implications.'
"Actually, many corporate executives appear to be well aware of the link between greenhouse gases and climate change.
"More than 80 percent of the companies that provided data for the Carbon Disclosure Project, a report detailing corporate response to global warming issues, acknowledged the potential risks and benefits of climate change. But fewer than half said they were working to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming."
[NYTimes article by Claudia Deutsch linked below.]
9-22 Robert Branson promises $3 billion to fight global warming. [NY Times article linked below.}
Earth Speaks Out
The Ethanol Illusion by Michael McElroy, Harvard Magazine Nov-Dec 06
- The Ethanol Illusion | Harvard Magazine
Americans annual consumption of gasoline (for both private and commercial transportation) amounts to more than 140 billion gallonsclose to 500
Global Warming--How to Survive
RICHARD LINDZEN, M.I.T.'S INCONVENIENT SCIENTIST
- M.I.T.'s Inconvenient Scientist
Boston Globe article on Richard Lindzen, global warming skeptic at M.I.T.
Sea Level Rise Due to Global Warming
GOD IS GREEN--REVIEW OF E.O. WILSON'S "THE CREATION"
- Matthew Scully's Review of Edward Wilson's "The Creation"
Harvard environmentalist Wilson addresses his 175 page enviornmental/global warming plea to an imaginary Baptist minister.
NASA SCIENTISTS FIND NEW SIGNS OF GLOBAL WARMING
CALIFORNIA SENDS A MESSAGE ON GLOBAL WARMING TO POWER PLANTS
- California Tries to Curb Greenhouse Gases
California tells power companies who propose to build low tech-high polluting power plants they won't be able to send the electricity to California. This is one of many pioneering steps anti-pollution steps taken by California. Bravo!
BUSH RUMORED TO BE ABOUT TO BECOME A BELIEVER IN GLOBAL WARMING
- Bush Prepares "Emissions U-Turn"
They know how to read polls in the White House. Politics trumps all.
ROYAL SOCIETY ASKS EXXON TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING PROPAGANDA
RAISE THE GASOLINE TAX? FUNNY, IT DOESN'T SOUND REPUBLICAN
How to reduce CO2 emissions from non-commercial motor vehicles
- How to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Motor Vehicles
Economists say taxing gasoline is the most effective way to reduce fuel consumption by non-commercial motor vehicles which are the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S....But raising gas taxes is a non-starter politically.
Gletsch--Then and Now
Gletsch Glacier, Melting Before Their Eyes
Niagara Falls 1911
A Message from the President On Global Warming
3-29-09 Climate Tipping Points by Andrew Revkin in the NYTimes
- Climate Tipping Points in Dispute
A growing effort to clarify such risks has yielded the same message climate experts have been conveying for more than two decades: More emissions of greenhouse gases raise the odds of trouble.
Scientists Debate Climate Tipping Points
“The climate is nearing tipping points,” the NASA climate scientist James E. Hansen wrote in The Observer newspaper of London. “If we do not change course, we’ll hand our children a situation that is out of their control.” ...
But the idea that the planet is nearing tipping points — thresholds at which change suddenly becomes unstoppable — has driven a wedge between scientists who otherwise share deep concerns about the implications of a human-warmed climate....
But other scientists say there is little hard evidence to back up specific predictions of catastrophe. They worry that the use of the term “tipping point” can be misleading and could backfire, fueling criticism of alarmism and threatening public support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions....
“I think a lot of this threshold and tipping point talk is dangerous,” said Kenneth Caldeira, an earth scientist at Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution and an advocate of swift action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. “If we say we passed thresholds and tipping points today, this will be an excuse for inaction tomorrow,” he said.
3-29-09 Among Climate Scientists a Dispute Over Tipping Points Andrew Revkin in the NYTimes
- Scientific Dispute Over Tipping Points
“The climate is nearing tipping points,” NASA scientist James Hansen wrote: “If we do not change course, we’ll hand our children a situation out of their control.” Other scientists say there's little hard evidence for predictions of catastrophe.
Thanks for the article. Everybody is encouraged to post a link to an article, pro or con, on the issue and what, if anything, we should be doing about it.
There was an article on CNN.com on August 8, 2002 (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/co
The net of it was that the contrails from the jetliners have a substantial impact on the temperature at the earthr's surface. Is anyone aware of any other studies regarding the effects of contrails on earth's temperature? Could a group of scientists form a project team to develope sub-micron sized dispersable particles which could be sprayed into the startosphere to act as one way mirror to reflect some of the sun's infrared rays from reaching the earth surface while allowing infrared radiation to escape the earth's atmoshere?
read this for a way to help: http://hubpages.com/hub/high_volume_flyash_concret
Global warming or the greenhouse effect is killing polar bears..because all the glaicers are melting and they can't swim for more than a mile in a half so if there are no glaicers in that mile in a half the polar bear will evuntally die becuase they can't swim any longer
True. Thanks for the comment.
Dear Ralph,
...your article is so in depth that I am not able to read all the details. Let me ask you: where do you find that is "burning" the most?
IM
I'm not sure what you mean by "burning the most." The U.S. is emitting by far the most greenhouse gases. Soon China and India will catch up with the U.S.
Coldest winter in the last 20 years here in the midwest.. Does not feel like warming to me..
Not to me either in Detroit. But one cold winter doesn't prove anything any more than one hurricane indicates climate change. What counts is average temperatures over longer periods which have been creeping up coincident with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Here's an update on Global Warming as of 3-29-09.
Just found your page, Ralph--well done, if a bit lengthy. I'll be coming back for more!
Thanks, Doc!
Ralph,
It sounds like the folks at MIT are misleading the people. Historical records show that the world was very warm during the medieveal years. Stating that we are faced with global warming all has to do with what baseline is being used to make the predictions.
Compared to the Medieval years (say 1000AD), the world is cool. During that time period, Greenland was warm enough to grow wheat. It truly was green back in those days.
Depending on the model used (linear vs. exponential), the results will vary widely. Also, there has been no global warming in the souther hemisphere, which if things were truly global, there would be change around the world.
In terms of temperature change, the fuss is about 1.2-1.7 degrees centigrade over a 100 year period. That is not much.
History tells me that man has had warmer days, even though MIT may say otherwise.
Your comment puts you in with a tiny minority of scientists. Global warming or not is a false dichotomy or dualism. Man-made climate change versus natural historical cycles is not an either-or issue. The climate at any given time is the product of BOTH periodic natural cycles which are beyond our control AND anthropomorphic factors, principally CO2 emissions, which have come into play in the past 100 years or so due to the industrial revolution.
Hard science has established that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. However, science can't predict the future with certainty because the effect of greenhouse gases could be canceled in the future by natural forces beyond our control, or natural forces could accelerate the warming caused by greenhouse gases. Or they could bring on another ice age. Nobody knows for sure. The prevailing scientific view is that absent a significant natural development increases in greenhouse gas emissions will warm the planet and produce significant damaging climate changes.
The extent of the change is debatable as well as how many resources we should be spending to curb greenhouse gases, but the warming trend resulting from greenhouse gases is a settled scientific fact, from what I've read. (I'm not a scientist.)
JD Murrah's comment that there has been no warming in the Southern hemisphere is incorrect. An accessible summary is available at the National Climate Data Center (Google "NCDC climate report 2009".)
They give you a timeseries bar graph for the entire instrumental record, plotted separately for the entire globe, Northern hemisphere and Southern hemisphere. You can also get similar information for the month of April in context for surface temps, satellite-measured temps at various levels of the atmosphere, and more.
(By the way, April was the 5th-warmest in the 129 years of the instrumental temperature record.)
Thanks for your comment. J.D. still thinks the South won the Civil war.
None of my neighbors think that, exactly, but I think some of them are still trying to win the civil war for the South.
Ralph,
Here is the link regarding the southern hemisphere not going through global warming http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern-hemisph . The author is Lubos Motl, who is a Harvard scientist. working on something called the string theory.
In terms of thinking the South won the war, it lost militarily. The issues, principles and cultural factors underlying it were never settled, and still are not as evidenced by secession concerns in Long Island, Staten Island, the resurrection of the 10th amendment, etc. (but that is for another hub). I just wanted to provide you with a link.
Science, as with any academic field has various opinions and interpretations of 'facts'. Such as
-Ice sheet melt theory reassessed (from BBC) http://digg.com/d1rGhU
-Clean air regulations and not CO2 are melting the ice. http://digg.com/d1oLFf (Big government makes the problem worse)
What is clear is that the scientific community are discussing matters and that the public is taking notice. We all need some awareness of science to avoid being led astray.
J.D., Thanks for the interesting links. The first one takes some cheap shots at James Hansen who is a leading climate scientist. Here's his wikibio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
As I said, I'm not a scientist, and I go mainly by what I read in the NY Times and other non-scientific publications which tell me that the consensus of scientists is that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming. The predictions are not precise and constantly changing as more data becomes available and is analyzed. Again, as I said above man-made climate change (warming) versus natural cycles is not an either-or issue. The climate during any given modern period is a product both of extra terrestrial factors AND man's actions--greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from coal fired power plants and motor vehicles both of which are in our control if we had the will to do it.
Good article. I'm so tired of hearing from the declining but determined climate change deniers with their recycled arguments. Let's get on with it.
Thanks. Me too.
Ralph, I meant to ask whether you'd let me link to this page. Would that be OK?
In case you want to check out the hub, it's:
The-Science-Of-Global-Warming-In-The-Age-Of-Napoleon
(Paste halves of the URL together in your browser window, or just use the title by itself in the hubpages search window. The curse of a long name!)
Sure. Help spread the word! In my estimation the problem is more one of education and world politics than science. The science is pretty clear so far as I can tell. (I'm not a scientist.)
Very good--I'll get that link in as soon as I can.
I've added another hub, and consequently another link to your site. You can see it at:
The-Science-of-Global-Warming-
in-the-age-of-Napoleon-III
(Paste link segments together or search the site.)
If it's not OK to add the link for some reason, please let me know & I'll pull it ASAP!
Thanks!
The link doesn't work. You are welcome to link your hub to my site.
Climate change may not be the half of it - or only the most obvious symptom to us "land dwellers". If you read Alanna Mitchell's book, "Sea Sick", you'll see that we are having a profound impact on our oceans - and this is even more critical than anything we are doing to the air. In fact, our oceans acting as a "heat sink" is likely why we haven't destroyed ourselves yet - but that doesn't mean we aren't capable of it or that we won't if we don't wake up.
I have a hub where I review her book. Check out: http://hubpages.com/hub/Sick-Seas-How-Alannah-Mitc
It's well worth the read.
Thanks. Will check your hub.
You have been duped. This is a political hijacking and there is no clear science as to "man made" global warming. Any impartial scientist who is not on the books of government will tell you that our earth' climate is a vastly complicated interaction of many ingredients and is totally impossible to pinpoint one factor as the culprit of global warming. Also, recent studies of the past few years show a slight "cooling" which is conveniently left out of any reporting that usually cites a 30 year average. The environmentalists, and liberals have teamed up for a power grab that is disenguious and dishonest in its reporting . DOnt be so gullible.
Tnx for your comment. We disagree. More than 90% of scientists agree that global warming threatens our way of life. The effect of greenhouse gases has been well-documented. It is beyond dispute.
greenhouse gases have an effect on the climate, this is not in dispute. Where you have been duped is this. THeir political agenda has convinced you this is a bad thing and that man has caused it. "man made" green house gases make up only a small percentage of those gases. Most of them occur naturally and are an important part of our climate. Do you understand that CO2 is a natural part of our climate and not some poison or pollutant as they want you to believe. DO you also know they are using statistics only when if favors their studies. They continue to give out 30 year averages when over the past 4 or 5 years we have showed a slight cooling in earth temperatures. YOu should always question when a political movement has taken sides in such a strong way. There are over 30,000 scientists who have problems with the way this science has been interpreted and are demanding much more debate and unbiased testing. The problem is that all the money is behind the "Al GOre" science which is full of "hot air" THe real truth is that the earths temperatures has always been a fluctuating thing and now is no different. We have come in and out of at least two ice ages long before man became industrialized. You wont hear those comments from a "global warming" scientist.
Actually, Braudboy--and with all due respect--you *will* hear those comments from mainstream climate scientists. These points have been part of the mainstream science for a long time now.
I've started a series of hub setting forth the "classic" science of climate change, in a human-interest sort of vein, as referenced above in this comment thread. However, a really excellent source for anyone wanting to learn about the scientific basis has been available for several years from physicist and writer Spencer Weart. It's called "The Discovery of Global Warming," and is a terrific piece of science writing. Google it, and you'll see what I mean.
YOu still miss the point. NO scientist has ever proven that "man-made" green house gases have caused global warming or that global warming even exists. These are conclusions based on computer models and cannot be verified in the real world. Again, it does not take a genius to understand that global climate temperatures have always fluctuated and have never been constant. Also, there are too many variables involved in creating climate temperatures and therefore impossible to isolate a "culprit". The research that needs to be done is who is financing the scientific research and what is their agenda. It is here that you will find the answers to what is going on. The "mainstream" scientists you refer to are on the payroll for a political movement. Try reading some research from scientists who are more impartial and not beholden for certain results.
Braudboy, yours is a tiny minority view. The conclusions are based on actual scientific measurements of temperature, ice thickness, greenhouse gas emissions etc, and on computer models which predict what will happen in the future if we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Climate at any given time is based on a combination of natural forces beyond our control and man-made factors that are within our control. It seems to me that, although we may not be able to predict or control natural forces, it makes sense as a precaution to control what is within our control.
YOU are still not listening when I say, they cannot determine what part man is contributing to this equation. Earth' climate has always fluctuated in all of those categories for centuries and since the beginning. We have gone in and out of at least 2 ice ages long before man became industrialized. There is an agenda here and you are too accepting of their conclusions. Why is man responsible for these fluctuations when these fluctuations were occurring since the beginning of time? Don't be so willing to give up your freedoms and learn to ask questions. And, it is pure lunacy that they tell you they can predict the future of earth's climate. THeir man-made computer models are worthless.
Well, you are getting information from different sources than I am. I'm not a scientist, however, from what I read more than 90% of the scientists are concerned about the effect on our climate of the tons of CO we are pumping into the atmosphere every day from coal fired power plants and huge, gas guzzeling motor vehicles.
No one knows what natural fluctuations for which we may be in store. However, the science is quite clear on the effect of GO and other gases that we have been increasingly pumping into the air since the industrial revolution. This could be cancelled out, accentuated or not affected by a natural fluctuation over which we have not control. If we assume that a natural fluctuation will not occur or will be minor, the earth's temperature will be increased by greenhouse gases. At least that's my understanding of our situation. Why take chances?
Ralph, I don't know if you've seen this yet, but a summary report is now out from the Copenhagen conference earlier this year. You (or any hubber) can download a PDF at this link:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/file
I appreciate the overall message, which is twofold:
1) action in mitigating emissions is urgent, and
2) there is still time for this action to be highly effective, although it is too late to avoid all negative consequences of "committed" warming.
In particular, it is still believed possible to avoid warming in excess of 2 degrees C--although unfortunately that degree of warming seems to be more dangerous to health, food and water security--as well as the political/military kind--and to biodiversity, than previously thought.
Why take chances?? Do you realize the drastic changes this movement is trying to force on society....without any real evidence to support this madness? It is a way to get their policies of more government and control over our freedoms. YOu should not be so willing to give up your rights.
Thanks, Doc, I haven't had a chance to read the report yet but will do so.
I bet Braudboy hasn't either. The longer we wait the more drastic the changes will be. I haven't noticed any proposals to give up my rights.
YOu havent noticed any proposals to give up my rights????? Are you serious? YOu havent heard of controlling our thermostats, giving up our SUVs, being taxed on using energy resources, limiting our uses of energy resources, and the list goes on. THis is a political movement that has hijacked a cause that might have had noble intentions in the beginning...but no more. They are not to be trusted.
Well, we don't agree. Man had nothing to do with previous fluctuations but more recently has contributed to well-documentd sources of warming. As I pointed out above,. the anthropormorphic effects may be reinforced or cancelled out by natural fluctuations. Nobody knows. However, if you assume the natural forces to be neutral man made sources of climate change are warming the planet. Just about all scientists agree on this. Even Exxon-Mobil has finally come around and spending research money on green energy.
I don't think any of the proposals to combat global warming conflict with any of our rights under the Constitution. (It doesn't contain anything about the right to drive a Hummer, one person per vehicle.)
YOu make no sense. THey are most certainly infringing on our rights under the fear of a "global warming" crisis. You have been "slicked" by a bunch of con men. The science that you do not hear in the headlines is that the sun is burning hotter than ever in the past 1,000 years according to scientists and temperatures across the solar system are above "normal"! WOW! I dont think man's contribution can reach across the solar system....and it shows the real culprit of any global warming......our advisary, the sun.
.... and how can man have nothing to do with previous warmings on this earth, and now you are convinced that he has everything to do with it? If you would use any common sense, it would be a very possible conclusion that the earth does not have a constant temperature and goes thru fluctuations. Therefore, how can scientists prove otherwise??? THe answer is they cannot. THey have proven nothing and only have theories. THen, you should ask yourselves, do they have alterior motives? Where is the agenda in the conclusions they reach? THere is a strong political movement with alot of money backing it up and their is very little science involved. Science is based on facts, and this "global warming" nonsense leaves the facts behind when it places blame on man. The unbiased science realizes that our climate is too complex and has too many variables to acurately perform scientific experiments that conclude that man is causing anything. THe much more probable culprit, if there is any "global warming" at all, is the increased activity of our sun.
Have you heard of the effects of the industrial revolution, huge increases in population and burning of hydrocarbons which has put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year. If you would read my comments above you will see that I agree that the earth had experienced climate cycles. This is nothing new. What's new is the increasing amounts of greenhouse gases (scientifically measured with considerable precision) and their accumulation in the atmosphere (scientifically measured) which are increasingly contributing to global warming.
Until recently, the "strong political movement" has been the oil, electric power and auto companies influencing our representatives in Washington. They haven't gone away, but they've stopped funding propaganda denying global warming. Now they are just trying to interfere quietly with efforts to do something about it. Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute hired the same PR guys that the tobacco companies used to deny that smoking caused lung cancer.
We are talking past each other. Why not just agree to disagree? (IMHO you need to read up a bit more on the subject in more reliable publications!)
Great hub Ralph....the only people who ignore global warming are those who profit from trashing the earth. If we don't help fix it.....mother nature will fix it by removing us...Again...thanks..great hub!
But, as you agree that the earth' climate has fluctuated, can you not see the strong possibility that man has nothing to do with climate. It is far beyond man to manipulate on this level. The whole solar system has warmed.....by the effects of the sun, which is burning hotter. The whole thing is ridiculous. There is no proof, but many are willing to grab hold of this idea to push an agenda. Watch the profiteers and power-grabbers that are manipulating the gullible masses such as yourself. They have proven nothing and you are falling down in your duty to be sceptical of such behavior.
Tom...you have hit on the real participants in this movement. It is the environmentalist extremists who think we are trashing the earth and they are willing to put a stop to it by any means....even lying and deceiving the masses and using fear as a motivator. "Global Warming" is a fairy tale and a tool by which they will try to manipulate earth's citizens into not polluting. These envirnomentalists do not even see that they too are being used by a powerful agenda that will not prevent pollution, but only tax it and make us less free to enjoy life. as those in power continue their same lifestyle, it will be harder for those of middle-class means to pay for the pleasures we enjoy now.
You're sounding more and more like some of the conspiracy theorists--Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA on instructions from LBJ, 911 was engineered by Jews because they got the word and evacuated and/or shorting the market, Obama was born in Kenya, a secret Muslim and not eligible for the Presidency, etc.
No...I am disputing the conspiracy theory. I am sceptical of the con job and the doomsday approach with which they conjur up their fear and panic. You should try to take a deep breath and look deeper into their eyes and search their true motives. You should always beware of the one who is selling.....and the "global warmers" are the ones selling.
Perhaps I am gullible....but I choose to help maintain the earth...even if there is nothing to global warming.....what does it hurt to clean our environment...do something towards helping the planet?
Braudboy, please read the science. It is far deeper and broader than you, or most people, realize. If you do, you will realize that the conspiracy idea just isn't viable. (It's pretty easy to access today, too. Start with "The Discovery of Global Warming" I previously gave a link for.
Also, I'm doing a series of "life, work, and times" Hubs on classical global warming science. So far, I have published 3:
The Science Of Global Warming In The Age Of Napoleon
The Science of Global Warming in the Age of Napoleon III
The Science Of Global Warming In The Age Of Queen Victoria
These are suitable for "non-science" folks, but do try to encapsulate why each researcher's work was important in building the mainstream picture of greenhouse gases and climate.
Thanks, Doc.
I understand the greenhouse gases...they are an important part of our climate. NOw, do you understand that man's contribution is minimal to the total greenhouse gases involved in our climate temperatures. Do you see how they manipulate and gloss over the debate that there is no way possible to isolate what effect man is contributing to the overall climate. Also, they never explain how past earth temperature fluctuations occurred before the industrialization of man. There is no discussion that quite possibly the earth is just going thru the cycle again and that man has a minimal and maybe no effect of temperatures. You see, if man is only a small percentage of the greenhouse gases to begin with, and we can only change some small percentage of our small percentage, how in the world do we see some drastic change in our climate from this action. It is ridiculous to assume that man can dial down a little on his carbon output and the result will be as turning down the thermostat on his A/C unit. THere are way too many factors that make up our climate and man is the smallest factor. Scientist were claiming "global cooling" only 30 or 40 years ago. Science, in the area of climate, is vague and assuming. However, a political movement highjacked the process and has financed some "paid for" research results that have no proof, but plenty of conclusions.
Tom....why be gullible? Of course, you should try to do your part to keep your environment clean. BUt, watch out for those who are trying to take your freedoms away. They are grabbing for power and could care less about "your" cause.
You mean the "guys in the black helicopters?"
No...not the ones in the black helicopters, the ones who have made you look foolish as you sign on to their agenda and give your freedoms away. Shame on you. There is a sucker born every day. WHy would you trust such a drastic change in the way we produce energy, build cars, and run our economy on such a flimsy and unproven basis that our earth is "warming". ....and speaking of black helicopters, You are the one who has swallowed the "whopper" that our world is reaching its end unless we do something now. SUCKER!
You know, it was not my intent to create a forum on this hub for name calling. I was hoping for something a bit more congenial and science based. Please take your diatribe elsewhere. In case you hadn't noticed HubPages is more congenial that a lot of other web forums. Name calling and expressing wild opinions without facts to back them up is frowned on. Bye.
I dont usually resort to name-calling....until you smarted off with the black-helicopter comment, writing me off as some whacko. I think you can read my other comments as congenial until that point. As for facts, there are none that pinpoint global warming to man made activity. You cannot just say that man produces carbon, therefore we are causing global warming. It is as insane as saying that if I jump into the ocean, I have raised the level of the Ocean. It is not noteworthy, nor is mans impact on the global climate which is almost primarily governed by the intensity of the sun.
Well there are a thousand climate scientists around the world who disagree with your beliefs. You are among an increasingly small number of global warming deniers. I suppose its possible that you are correct and thousands of scientists are wrong, but I doubt it.
I'd like to respond to a couple of things braudboy said. I think you've already covered them earlier, Ralph, but for passersby:
There is in fact a way to figure out how much of the warming we've observed over the past 30-40 years is caused by humans. (The scientists call this the "attribution" problem.) It's a big job, but not only is it doable, it has been done and redone.
What you do is add up what we emit--a large accounting problem, but a straightforward concept. You check this against direct measurements of the atmosphere. (For CO2 levels this has been done reliably since 1958; additionally, isotopic studies of the atmospheric CO2 show that an appreciable fraction of it must come from fossil (fuel) sources.) You deduct the portions that are end up being absorbed by the oceans and biosphere.
You then use that number to calculate what amount of warming the known physical properties of CO2 will produce in the atmosphere. Although the radiative transfer physics are complicated enough, basically this part (I gather) is just slogging through lengthy calculations.
But then you have to calculate the atmospheric response. (This was first done in a more-or-less adequate way by Canadian-American physicist Gilbert Plass in 1956. It turns out that you need to calculate the effects using a "layer-by-layer" approach or your results will be incorrect.) But this, too, has been extensively validated by now.
This gives you a "radiative forcing"--a measure of the radiative "push" administered by the CO2. You then have to use that info to figure out how the climate system responds over time.
When you've done that, you compare what was predicted to what actually happened in the real world. Of course, that isn't easy either. Measuring temperatures all around the globe consistently takes a lot of careful work, and so does reducing the data to a useable form. Then there's the fact that other factors influence climate, like solar radiation, and these change. So you have to take those into account, which means you need good data on solar output and such.
But the take-away is that all this has been done, validated, re-done and refined, over and over again. We know that solar changes aren't causing the warming, because we directly measure solar output. (And in fact, solar output has been down slightly for the last couple of years, which has partially offset the warming trend.)
Today, we know what we put into the atmosphere; it's increased the CO2 concentration by over 30%, and as far as we can tell, that's the highest concentration for millions of years.
We know what the physical results of these emissions are--a radiative imbalance, a condition where the Earth is (temporarily) taking in more energy than it emits. (This is today measured directly by satellite sensors.)
And we know a lot about how this will change with time: a doubling of CO2 (or equivalents in other greenhouse gases) will give approximately 3 degrees C of warming over time.
It is estimated on the basis of all available evidence that a reasonably safe limit of warming would be 2 C. We can still make that target according to the White House report just released, and IMO we should bend every effort to do so.
Many thanks again, Doc. You know more about the subject than either I or BB.
Doc...come on! All of these calculations that you suggest we can do, we most certainly cannot do. These scientists have only created computer models, and these models will only do what they are designed to do. Climate cannot be reduced to some lab experiment. CO2 is only a small percentage of 'greenhouse' gases in our atmosphere and these greenhouse gases are only a small percentage of the total equation of climate temperatures. ..and your info is inaccurate. The sun is burning hotter than ever, and also, even with this event, climate temperatures have cooled over the past 3 or 4 years. These very same scientists were worried about "global cooling" just 25 years ago. THere science is only a theory and has not even come close to being proven. They cant even prove that warming is a bad thing. Also, there have been tests from studying ice that show that c02 is a result of warming and not a cause. There is much to learn here and we are jumping to quick conclusions only because of a political movement that is trying to grab power.
What political movement is trying to grab power by promoting global warming issues?
Are you seriously asking...as if you have not noticed the "white hot" promotion of this agenda in the political arena??? Ralph, you seem like an intelligent person.....how do you think this particular item has gained so much attention, over, say the past 5 years, and especially over the past year???
WHo took power in the past year?? The main reason that it has gained so much in popularity is that the political machine has cleverly coerced and convinced the "nonsuspecting and naive" environmentalists and truly concerned citizenry that their plans are pure and their only intent is to clean up and save the world. Step back for a moment and think about what is really going on and what the implications are if there plans are enacted. They will not stop the so-called "pollution" of our earth. They will just be allowed to tax it and controll it. This is a huge power grab as almost everything emits CO2 (which is not a pollutant, by the way). Our country runs almost exclusively on coal-powered power plants and there is no way possible to change to another system to power our needs. So, we will not stop emmitting CO2, but rather we will enable our government to tax them, growing our government to enormous proportions at the expense of WHO??
There is much more to say here....you need to be careful of giving over your rights and freedoms to any bunch running Washington. This is not the original design of our politicians and they are way out of control in trying to run our lives. YOu will regret the decision to allow them to do so.
Before the end of his administration Bush finally accepted that something should be done about global warming. Exxon and British Petroleum ads are dueling over which company is "greener." The current dispute is focusing on what, how much, not whether to do something to prevent or forestall global warming. You are in what amounts to a fringe group. You may be right but the odds are against you.
I agree that the odds are against me. It is a very popular movement, but the people it is popular with will be very disappointed with the results. The people who are running this movement are only using those who truly care about the planet to get their agenda into place. Most companies have no choice but to sign on to this agenda if they want to stay in business. It is being shoved down their throats. BUt, if you look at what is really trying to get accomplished by those in power, it is only a money grab and a power grab and does not solve the so-called "global warming crisis". So, we will still be "polluting" our planet but the common man will be at the mercy of government for his energy needs, his lifestyle, his every move will now be under control of government. Your power bills will skyrocket, (a very clever way to get more money out of us without actually raising our taxes). They just tax the companies who then pass the cost on to us. THis is very far-reaching legislation being thrown around in Washington and you need to wake up to what they are proposing. They are selling you "save the world", but their actions are quite the opposite.
Here's a scary article from the June 29 New Yorker entitled "The Catastrophist" about James Hansen, director of NASA's Institute for Space Studies by Elizabeth Kolbert.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/29/0906
"Hansen has now concluded, partly on the basis of his latest modelling efforts and partly on the basis of observations made by other scientists, that the threat of global warming is far greater than even he had suspected. Carbon dioxide isn't just approaching dangerous levels; it is already there. Unless immediate action is taken--including the shuddown of all the world's coal plants within the next two decades--the palnet will be committed to change on a scale society won't be able to cope with this. "this particular problem has become and emergency," Hansen said.
Speaking before a congressional committee last year, Hansen asserted that fossil-fuel companies were knowingly spreading misinformation about global warming and that their chairmen "should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." He has compared freight trains carrying coal to "death trains," and wrote to the head of the National Mining Association, who sent him a letter of complaint, that if the comparison "makes you uncomfortable, well, perhaps it should."
TIME IS RUNNING OUT!!
For BB:
PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 28, 2009
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.
To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.
In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?
Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.
Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.
Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?
Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.
Next Article in Opinion (1 of 26) » A version of this article appeared in print on June 29, 2009, on page A21 of the New York edition. Past Coverage
Ralph- I know Paul Krugman's view and that of the New York Times! If this is your standard for news, then I understand your view on "GLobal Warming"
How on earth people can buy into the predicitions well into our future on climate temperatures, when we cant even accurately predict into next week or next month. We cant predict hurrican seasons accurately or any thing that involves the factors that make up climate. BUt it also makes their outragous claims hard to disprove also. That is very convenient as the political machine moves forward to gobble up your freedoms and rights and money. America has come a long way in developing its energy sources, and has relied mostly on coal because the idiotic environmentalists woud not allow the development of nuclear energy. Now they have found a way to put a hold on the coal energy and are trying to force us into the solar and wind market. These are very unreliable and not nearly as cost efficient. Prepare to have your energy costs skyrocket. It does not really accomplish anything toward less co2 emmissions, but it does accomplish a big government grab into our pocket books. Congratulations.
No, Krugman is one of my standards for opinion not news. I've been reading the NYT for news nearly every day since 1954 and find it quite accurate most of the time. I also read Science News and several other daily newspapers including the Wall Street Journal. Where do you get your information?
I'd rather pay for a little insurance now rather than see my ancestors have their lives turned upside down or burned to a crisp. I'm not a scientist, but on this page and several others on global climate I've cited reports of considerable scientific evidence. You are denying warming, as far as I can tell, based on your feeling that we are victims of some kind of conspiracy to take away our freedom. But you haven't provided much beyond your own personal assertions and fears to support this position.
Ralph, if I prove that the earth has warmed recently, could I not blame it on the internet, which has increased in activity over the past 10 or 15 years? YOu should not be so gullible. THere is no proof that man has caused "global warming". How do you ignore the pattern of thousands of years that the earth has entered and exited at least 2 ice ages. How do you accept that it is CO2 emmissions and not just normal fluctuations?. THese scientists cannot prove different but are only theorizing. You can take comfort in knowing that they have fooled many people and not just yourself. It is not my place to prove "non-global warming". They are the ones making accusations and it is easy to see their intentions and to see that their arguement lacks heavily in proof. Do not give up your lifestyle on the flimsy evidence of those who are trying to change your life. You should be more protective of your lifestyle and not be so willing to hand it over to others.
Ralph, It was just reported in the local news that Hattiesburg,MS is on pace for record hot temperatures for June 2009. THey go on to say that there havent been this many days with over 100 degrees temperature in 98 years. THe interesting part here, for people who are paying attention and not so easily buying into the hysteria of "man made global warming" is this.....Why did we have such hot temperatures 98 years ago which would be the year 1911. At this time man was certainly not nearly as advanced in his technoligical polluting of the earth. Man had no air conditioning or mass production of automobiles or any of the other activities that are being blamed on global warming. Does it not make you stop and think that maybe and even probably the earth just goes through fluctuations in climate temperatures and does not stay constant. This would mean that man has very little to do with it and those who are claiming so have some other agenda in mind.
Nope. What "other agenda?" Who?
Ralph- I can appreciate that you are convinced of this scam. I see that you have no questions for them and are satisfied with this movement having your best interests at heart. There are so many holes in their studies and you just look the other way. Well, I cannot do so and I only hope enough concerned citizens will do the same and put a stop to the madness. How you cannot question the fact that we have on record much higher temperature readings from 98 years ago and the fact that the earth has fluctuated in and out of at least 2 ice ages is beyond me. I know it might cause some tensions in the circles you keep, but try reaching inside your intellect for some common reasoning and some skepticism for those who want to radically change our way of life. Dont just accept some clever marketing and slick advertising as truth. I have brought up some real points that shine light on their hyprocacy and all you can say is "nope" and "what other agenda"???
Here is a newsflash for you. THe earth's climate has always been a fluctuating event becoming hotter and colder. This is a proven fact. So, why do you want to look at the past 20 or 30 years and ignore the past hundreds and thousands of years of history. It makes no sense to me, but I am sure you have somehow made sense of it.
As I pointed out earlier, the earth's climate at any given time is the product of a combination of naturally occurring fluctuations and, increasingly for the past 100 years or so, man-made green house gases. The natural fluctuations may accentuate the greenhouse effect, cancel it out or have no effect. There is nothing we can do about that. However, greenhouse gases are within our control and their effect on climate has been well established and accepted by virtually all scientists. Assuming the natural fluctuations are neutral or warming we are in for a major climate change in the next 50 to 100 years or so. It seems prudent to me to take steps to reduce CO 2 emissions before it's too late. You still haven't answered my question wrt just who you think is perpetrating what you believe to be a scam and what their motives are. It's absolutely clear who has been conspiring and propagandizing on the other side of the issue--big oil, most notably Exxon, the electric power industry, the coal industry and until recently the auto industry.
We just have one wonderful planet for us to live and we all have equal responsibility towards it. Why do some folks deny adverse climate change I simply can't understand?
Maybe Braudboy will get around to telling us.
Ok then will wait for his response. :-)
Concerns for the planet is a legitimate goal. What we have here is clearly a political movement that has absolutely nothing to do with "saving the planet".
It is a very arrogant statement to even claim that humans can destroy or have any control over our climate. It cannot be proven or disproven which is very convenient for the doomsday crowd who are crying for action. BUt, you dont have to look hard at the actions of those in charge to realize they are not trying to do anything except gain more control of our lives. ONce you have given up your freedoms you will not be able to get them back. THey are reversing the very technoligical advances we have achieved over the past 30 or 40 years. They are crippling the economy with a massive tax that does not reduce "green house" gases, but taxes the power companies that emit CO2. THese companies are regulated and will be allowed to pass the tax on to the consumers. Get ready for higher energy bills, higher gasoline prices, and pretty much higher prices on everything as everything is at least indirectly tied to energy. Sounds like a great plan to me...if you are an idiot.THe problem with too many environmentalists are that they are very gullible. All you have to do to get them on board is to say you want to help save the planet or reduce pollution or plant more trees, etc. Then you can sell them any plan that accomplishes nothing toward their goals, because you use all of the right "buzz" words. It is exactly what this administration has done and the "greenies' are going right along with it, totally blind to what the real actions or real agenda is.
Country women- instead of asking why people deny adverse climate change, You should ask why there are people who are claiming adverse climate change. You see, they are the ones who want to drastically change your life and you should be asking why???? Your naivete' is astounding! These "global warmers" are starting to see their "so called" scienctific finding fall apart around them. THe political machine is pushing hard to pass their legislation right now before they are totally exposed. The reality is that our climate is very sound and is a completely self sustaining system that functions in spite of whatever man can dish out. Whenever an ingredient of the climate formula increases, our climate has counter measures to bring the climate back into line. This is seen primarily thru water vapor as the earth is mostly made of water. THese "global warming scientists" have totally ignored this activity as they program their computer models to show doom for our planet. It is totally ridiculous that they have fooled so many people. THis planet has been around for at least thousands of years, if not millions of years. It is a self-sustaining, well functioning system and the only result of any actions done by these scoundrels will be to take away more of your freedoms and more of your hard-earned dollars as they grab for more power and influence in our daily lives. Go to globalwarminghoax.com for more info.
You need to be more sceptical of those who are proposing the drastic changes and not so doubting of those who are simply questioning their agenda.
Braudboy- Yes I am naive in so many things and maybe I am not totally informed. In my place (back in India) the weather pattern for rains has changed, people are affected by deforestation, the air quality has become deteriorated (due to pollution), water is harder to get by and so on.
About US are there any particular reasons why US doesn't want to be a signatory to Kyoto protocol?
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
The U.S. has no interest in the Kyoto protocol as it is totally unfair in excluding India and China, the two most booming economies other than the U.S. and our main competitors in the world economy. TO sign on to this agreement would just allow these other countries to greatly surpass the U.S. and greatly harm our economy. THose are the main reasons, even if you buy into this global warming hoax. Once you factor in that man is not even effecting our global climate, it makes the whole thing totally ridiculous. Look, the U.S. is totally dependent on coal-fueled power plants, which emits CO2. There is nothing we can do about this. THe environmentalists pushed us in this direction 30 or more years ago when they rejected and blocked the development of nuclear powered energy plants because of their paranoia. NOw, they want to totally cripple our economy by demonizing our coal power plants. YOu cant make them happy until we turn the clock back 100 years to the unreliable energy sources of solar and wind. THis is a dangerous path that will weaken this country and make our energy costs skyrocket.
The U.S. should be leading, not dragging its feet.
The U.S. has been leading, economically and in wealth. The global warming madness should put an end to that.
Endless debate about our role in climate change with people who are afraid of intervention is a waste of time. They will never change their minds no matter what the science says. We need to get on with reducing fossil fuel emissions before it's too late to turn back. Fortunately the consensus has turned that way, although we still have to deal with people who feel it's their right to damage the planet in order to have their fun and make their profits.
Barbara- you have been duped. THere is no damage to our planet, and you are willingly handing over your rights and freedoms to those who do not have your best interests in mind. ....and by the way fun and profit are not dirty words. You should try having fun and making profits, you will enjoy the results. Believe me when I tell you that those who are selling you "global warming" plan on doing both at your and my expense.
Great posting comments of members of the U.S. Congress. Like to know what your thoughts are on the Clean Energy Bill 2454 that passed the House and now will go before the Senate. You can find a summary of the bill on my hub know your congressman. Again great hub!
What is obvious about the "global warming" movement is this. There is an agenda to promote certain technologies for energy that have totally failed in the "free market" arena. When left to their own devices they do not compare in price orperformance to the existing sources we have. The only way to get America to convert is to scare them through a totally exagerated and false premise that our current technologies are destroying the world's climate. This is ridiculous and the citizens of America should be very sceptical of their plans.
Interesting and informative Hub,Ralph.
Thanks! A compliment from you means a lot.
I'm no great fan of main stream media. However, anyone who takes the trouble to search a bit for sources outside MSM can get at the truth. However, few people bother or are able to do that and are misled as in the case of Vietnam, and our foolish and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.
I've read quite a bit about climate change in MSM and elsewhere, and I'm convinced that prudence requires us to take steps to deal with it. I will take a look at some of your hubs.
Watch out for that hole in the Ozone! And the new Ice Age!
Oooops! Wrong Decade! My Bad.
Senator Debbie Stabenow says she can feel the global warming
when she is flying on a jet, way up in the atmosphere! AND she's a Real Life SENATOR!!!
Well, I don't think Senator Stabenow's comment is exactly a scientific observation, but I think her position on climate change is correct, i.e., that we should be doing something about it.
Sept. 25, 2009 | When eminent scientists, elected officials and diplomats of all political persuasions gather in Copenhagen in December to renew the worldwide effort against catastrophic climate change, there will be at least one discordant voice in the house. Sen. James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who has called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated," has vowed to bring the conservative message of doubt, in person, to Climate Conference 2009.
No doubt Inhofe's appearance will embarrass the Obama administration and irritate environmentalists, just as the eccentric Oklahoman intends. But nobody will be more frustrated and perplexed than the European conservatives who are hosting the conference in Denmark and whose governments in Germany, Sweden and France have made the most sustained progress toward the energy and carbon reduction goals set out in the original Kyoto agreement. Those leaders cannot understand why their ideological comrades in the United States refuse to acknowledge the gravity of the problem -- and insist that "conservatism" is synonymous with freedom to pollute and ruin.
The division between American and European conservatives over climate change came up during the Clinton Global Initiative's meeting in New York City this week, when Danish environmental minister Connie Hedegaard, who is overseeing preparations for the Copenhagen conference, met with former President Bill Clinton. A leader of the Conservative People's Party, which shares power in Denmark as part of the ruling coalition, Hedegaard has complained bluntly about the obstructions erected by Republicans in the U.S. Congress. Not surprisingly, perhaps, Clinton agreed -- and suggested that Hedegaard bring her message of conservative environmentalism directly to her American counterparts. Joe Conason in Salon 9-25-09
I guess Man Made Global Warming must be what caused the Glaciers to recede 10,000 years ago! All those pesky Caveman campfires. Why else would the Danes and Clintons be so worried??? And then there's Al Gore! No reason to believe he would have ANY nefarious or personally beneficial reasons to promote man made global warming. He's a Genuine Former Vice President of the USA!!!!
Jimmy, More than 95 percent of the scientists believe that global climate change is an urgent concern. Your comment indicates that you are not well informed on the subject. I suggest you do a little reading up on the subject from legitimate sources rather than ignorant political crapola that's circulating on the Internet.
Deliberately destroying the US economy while China and India offset any potential benefits - which are uncertain in any case - is a bad idea for everyone.
Wrong. The U.S. should be leading the way instead of dragging its feet. China and India have both recognized the issue and starting to take action. Your view is that of a small minority. The economy will benefit from green energy projects.
Well Ralph, the truth is that the majority of us in the science community used to be vocally against Man Made Climate Change. But, after seeing our research grants threatened or cancelled many of us had to(were forced to) change our "Tunes"
to be in line with the POLITICAL Forces with the purse strings. THAT'S THE REAL TRUTH! We have families and bills, just like everyone else. If you want to be a rube for a bunch of Ex-Hippies with less than noble motives, that's your right.
Posting articles from the New Yorker or Salon.com gives absolutely no credibility to or against Climate Anything!
One might as well sight articles from the Huffington Post or TMZ.com
Well, Jimmy, feel free to post any information that you consider more reliable. I've found the science articles in the NYTimes and other general publications quite helpful. Also, please feel free to refrain from name calling. We try to keep our discussions friendly and factual in HubPages. Thanks for your comments. Just curious, what are your scientific credentials? If you are a global warming denier, please support your position. Calling me a "rube for a bunch of Ex-Hippies with less than noble motives" doesn't advance the disucssion, and doesn't sound very scientific for a member of the "science community."
Ralph, I missed the memo by the "science community" as to the correct way to respond like a "scientist" and the memo that explained that you are an authority on such responses. My Bad.
Here's a sample of what real scientists(not former Vice Presidents or Keith Olbermann)are up against!
"The economy will benefit from green energy projects. "
Mabye, hopefully, theoretically, and years after economic devastation would have harmed people all over the world.
Great thinking.
Jimmy, if you peruse this Hub you will see that I linked the Boston Globe article about M.I.T.'s global warming skeptic, Lindzen three years ago. I have repeatedly acknowledged that I'm not a scientist and that my opinions about climate change are based mainly on reports in the main stream media. You criticize my opinions because of this, and then you cite an three-year-old article from the Boston Globe. As a scientist I'm sure you can do better than this. And BTW, I seem to recall that Lindzen has more recently modified his views on climate somewhat. I'll see if I can find something on that.
Here's an interesting link on Professor Lindzen that says he was on the payroll of oil companies while he was speaking out against global warming.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
Here's an analysis of the scientific consensus wrt global warming.
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.
Looks to me like Jimmy's way out in right field.
So you say the Professor was in the pocket of big oil. but when I say that Man Made Global Warming Advocates are in it for the money or some other less than noble reason, I'm in right field. So only people that are anti-global warming have
shady motives??? The believers are clean....non-believers like me are unclean.
Do you think Prof Lindzen changed his tune because of hard scientific facts? Dream on. The threat of black balling and revocation of funds does strange things to people.
My colleagues and I have been "talked to" by the Board of Regents 3 times in the past, to make sure we didn't report anything that would upset the "Donors"(politicians/corporations). I would be subject to departmental discipline if I could be linked to commenting about Global Warming on a public forum.
A very small percentage, of which I believe includes you, have real honest concern for the Planet. The majority are working some angle of personal benefit. I submit my data and look the other way as the "Donors" twist the data in their favor because I have a family to support. Until I can afford to be a Whistle Blower, I'm part of the problem!
I didn't say that Lindgren was in the pocket of oil companies. The author of the article said:
Does Lindgren have any conflicts of interest?
Lindzen recieved $2500 a day from oil and coal interests for his services.1,2, 3 His article "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.1 Lindzen has lectured at numerous Cooler Heads Coalition meetings. The Cooler Heads Coalition is funded by CEI which is in turn funded by Exxon Mobil. He has also given talks for the George C. Marshall Institute which is also funded by Exxon Mobil. His connections to the oil, coal, and even tobacco industry are apparently rather extensive. Here is one listof many that is worth exploring. Richard Lindzen claims he is currently not recieving any handouts from oil companies.
Lindzen also has a habit of disagreeing with other people. According to SEED magazine: "His former graduate students describe him as fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak." One of Lindzens own MIT students, Kirk-Davidoff, has said "If you want to prove yourself a brilliant scientist, you don't always agree with the consensus," "You show you're right and everyone else is wrong. He certainly enjoys showing he's right and everyone else is wrong, If you have a ten minute conversation with him, you can tell that."
Receiving $2500/day from EXXON and coal fired power companies might cast a bit of doubt on Lindgren's objectivity, don't you think.
I'm not aware of any similar motives attributable to the scientists who are saying we should be concerned about global warming. If you are aware of any such "shady" motives please tell us about them.
Lindgren doesn't have to worry about being upbraided by M.I.T. for commenting on global warming because he is a tenured professor of climate science and is therefore expected to comment and publish on the subject. However, in making his comments he, in my opinion, is obligated to disclose the payments from oil and coal companies. I don't know whether he did this or not. I don't doubt what you are saying about your situation. However, it strikes me as curious that the regents of your university would be discouraging honest, informed, factual commentary on any subject of public interest.
That's the problem Ralph. It strikes too many people curious that appointed or elected officials would act in that manner.
People are too trusting of officials and media types.
He who pays the piper names the tune. You don't play the tune, you no longer get paid. Ever wonder why K Street has so many "think tanks" and "lobbyist"? Honest, informed and factual commentary RARELY exists. It's bent or scrubbed by the payer.
Well, I don't disagree about the person who's paying the piper calling the tune. Some call more reasonable tunes than others. My impression is that most colleges and universities respect the right of professors to express themselves on most any subject so long as they make it clear that they aren't speaking on behalf of the university. Speaking of the piper calling the tune, I guess your interpretation means that EXXON and the coal and coal fired power industries are or were calling Lindzen's tune on global climate change???
Lindsay Graham and John Kerry agree on need for climate change legislation:
CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly approaching zero. The divisions in our country on how to deal with climate change are deep. Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.
However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.
NYTimes Op-ed 10-11-09
Of course Lindzen played Exxon's tune! That's my point. Just as you played the NLRB's tune or the State of Michigan's tune.
Unless someone is directly involved with the behind the scenes science of Climate Change, a person can only rely on what they read and they usually interpret what they read based on their Political Leanings.
Are you involved with the "behnind the scenes science of climate change?" Quite a lot of information is available on it, nearly all of it suggesting there is cause for concern. Why don't you write a Hub stating your position?
Thanks for your comments!
Ralph, thanks for keeping this valuable hub coming to us!
I'm a bit bemused by the notion of "behind-the-scenes science," as the heart of the process is publication. But perhaps Jimmy just made an unfortunate choice of words.
As to my two cents, I'd throw out the fact--not all that widely reported, but in the public record--that we have had a number of temperature records set this summer, even as most of Eastern North America remains fairly cool. Among others, we've had record high sea surface temperatures for three months this summer--notable as the oceans are the biggest heat reservoir by far--as well as the warmest temperatures for the Southern Hemisphere. Globally, September was the second-warmest ever.
And all this despite the quiet sun--currently in a prolonged solar minimum unprecedented in the modern observational era--which slightly reduces the energy coming into the Earth's atmosphere.
Yet some keep trying to tell us the planet is cooling. It's really astonishing.
I meant to add that it is refreshing to see Lindsey Graham come around. He is conservative, but not such a prisoner of ideology as to be just out of touch with reality.
Thanks, Doc. It's good to get a little positive feedback.
I encourage all to see the Documentary -Not Evil, Just Wrong-
It's by the Journalist that had his questions evaded and his microphone cut off by Al Gore.
http://www.kxmd.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=45140
We are passing this one around the lab. It's riveting!
Well, Jimmy's link went to a story on the court ruling which seemed to me a tad one-sided. Here's the other side:
"Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
"In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
"The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts."
Did you see the film Doc? If Al Gore is all about the TRUTH, why did he refuse to be interviewed for the film?
If he believes he is so on track, why does he continue to refuse to debate his findings in public?
The filmmakers also interviewed one of Gore's top scientific advisors, climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University and the IPCC. In the 1970s, Schneider warned of an immanent and devastating manmade ice age, but now he preaches immanent and devastating manmade global warming. After the interview, Schneider withdrew permission and Stanford University lawyers threatened the filmmakers not use their footage. However, they can legally reveal what he said, so they do.
Why would a Scientist of Schneider's Stature do that???
I had to defend and stand debate on my Masters and Doctorate. We have a gag order on most of our climate research because the people paying for it want to spin the results to their purpose. So, is it out of the question that the Amazing Al Gore might be doing some spinning???
Jimmy, is it possible that your obvious dislike of
Al Gore is influencing your views on climate change? Ad hominem comments aren't very scientific. Gore is a layman, not a scientist. Does it surprise you that there were some scientific errors in his movie? "Some errors" or exaggerations do not mean that his conclusion that we should be doing something about climate change is wrong. Moreover scientific findings on climate are evolving and changing quite frequently.
Who were the "people paying for your climate research?"
Why don't you sign up and do a Hub expressing your views and scientific information?
Another downside of coal-fired electric power plants--scrubbers installed to reduce air pollution cause waste water pollution of our drinking water.
But the cleaner air has come at a cost. Each day since the equipment was switched on in June, the company has dumped tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater containing chemicals from the scrubbing process into the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to 350,000 people and flows into Pittsburgh, 40 miles to the north.
Ralph, I'm going to assume you know what I meant when I said we have a gag order on our research. You might also remember my posting about being subject to disciplinary action for talking about it on public forums. I was NOT joking or trying to trick anyone. I simply get frustrated when people continue to think there is freedom of info on ALL research projects and that no spinning goes on by Democrats and Republicans or "Special Interests Groups".
Al Gore presents himself as an AUTHORITY on Climate Change.
The 9 mistakes were made by Gore's Scientists, not by Gore.
Many average Joes believe Al simply because he's a Democrat, just as many Joes disagree simply because they are Republicans.
My main complaint is that too many people believe or don't believe in Man Made Global Warming simply because of the "authoritative sources" they get their info from. I'm asking people on this forum to consider that many Public/Private Entities and Politicians have less than noble reasons for being Pro/Against Climate Change!
Can't a scientist have or not have a personal dislike. Scientists are Human Beings too. There's no on/off switch.
I'm grateful you allowed my comments on your forum. You seem to be a fair gentleman and the others here seem to have genuine concerns as well. I'll leave this as my last post, but would like to stop by occasionally to read your comments. Thanks again Mr. Deeds!
Sincerely,
Jimmy -Scientist and Human Being-
Well, if you did a Hub you wouldn't have to use your real name. I'm sure HubPages wouldn't reveal your identity unless ordered to do so by a court.
As world leaders struggle to hash out a new global climate deal by December, they face a hurdle perhaps more formidable than getting big polluters like the United States and China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: how to pay for the new accord. NYTimes, 10-14-09
Money is always one of the toughies, isn't it?
I was also intrigued by today's update, the story about reducing methane emissions. It really does seem, as one of the sources said, like a "no-brainer." Even more so--and they don't mention this in the story--since the major breakdown product of methane in the atmosphere is in fact CO2. (So not only do you get the 10-year period of intense greenhouse activity from the methane, you also get the less-intense but much longer-term effect from the CO2.)
Coincidentally, I just published a Hub summarizing and reviewing David Archer's book "The Long Thaw," which is a real trove of accurate up-to-date information on the science related to this problem. It has a lot about CO2's residence time in the atmosphere. For those interested, see:
Thanks, I'll read it.
WASHINGTON — Burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution, the National Academy of Sciences reported in a study issued Monday.
I thought the label changed form global warming to climate change.
Everything is a crisis today. I have been hearing stuff for the last 35 years of my life. The gas shortage in the 70' was the biggest farce I had ever seen, which was at the beginning of this whole thing.
Keep on hubbing!
I'll change it if it'll make you a believer!
The video just added to this hub is dedicated to jiberish, tex, and all the other Fox fans on HubPages.
Yes Ralph, I am that shallow, change the name and I will believe it. Thank you.
Thank you for dedicating it to us. I noticed almost everything came from the liberal NY times. Wow talk about bias.
I want truth not this garbage all of the alarmist crap that is being placed on us. Al Gore is one of those big money guys you guys hate so much, but you guys are too blinded to see. Al is in it for the money. I want all around facts, and most of the facts presented by the alarmist are one sided and not true. Everything is a crisis and the democrats use it for manipulating legislature. This is their mode of operation. Let's slow it down and get it right!
Keep on hubbing!
Just two questions; First, how much of the arctic ice (and aforementioned glaciers) melted in the last interglacial period? (Answer: all of the ice) Second, What are the chances that like the last 5-10 ice ages or so, it is all melting again right now? (Answer 100%)
Get used to natural climate change - embrace it... it stressed mammal populations a couple hundred thousand years ago and forced the evolution of you didnt it?? Just don't scam us to buy your flourescent bulbs, expensive electric cars, pay your energy company more for smart grids, solar panels, and windmills that big corporations with doe skin briefcase lobbyists like GE are trying to sell...
Oh and good hub, bumps up on the feedback bro. :)
Thanks for your comment.
The scientists aren't denying "natural" climate change. They are just saying that IN ADDITION TO natural change man made factors should also be considered because they are warming the earth. Natural factors could accentuate this warming effect, neutralize it, or bring on a new ice age. Nobody can predict with certainty what the "natural" forces will do because these "cycles" have not been regular.
The Lord Monckton quoted in the Baldwin piece is borderline looney tunes, in my opinion.
I'd agree with you, Ralph--Monckton is way, way out there. From the "Nobel Laureate" claim, to the "won the Falklands war" claim, to the manipulated "Curry (sic) & Clow" graph, to this latest piece, he has earned quite a reputation as the "potty peer" of the climate debate.
I exchanged a few emails with him a couple of years ago, and he signed his "Moncton of Brenchley" which struck me as a little bit phony. Here's one of my replies in which I responded in kind:
"Dear "Moncton of Brenchley:
"You purport to be objective but your report based on your so-called "research" is blatantly one sided. You have allied yourself with the forces of darkness and evil.
"Deeds of Birmingham"
Gore criticized for his investments in green technology.
Congress is unlikely, this year or next, to establish the “cap and trade” system for curbing carbon emissions that Mr. Obama and party leaders seek. Nor are world leaders at a climate conference in Copenhagen next month likely to strike a concrete deal to limit emissions in the name of curbing global warming.
Why let Facts get into the way of a good Political Agenda?
RRS, thanks for the link!
Trans, thanks for the comment and link!
mausmi says:
3 years ago
Here's an excellent article from the New York Times by Andrew Revkin about a tropical Arctic 55 million years ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01
The new studies documenting methane bubbling out of permafrost may be the positive feedback, or "something extra," that caused the Arctic to be warmer in the past than predicted by computer simulations.