EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

White House Climate Change Report Issues Dire Warning On Worsening Situation

SETH BORENSTEIN   06/16/09 09:52 PM ET   AP

Global Warming

WASHINGTON — Rising sea levels, sweltering temperatures, deeper droughts, and heavier downpours _ global warming's serious effects are already here and getting worse, the Obama administration warned on Tuesday in the grimmest, most urgent language on climate change ever to come out of any White House.

But amid the warnings, scientists and government officials seemed to go out of their way to soften the message. It is still not too late to prevent some of the worst consequences, they said, by acting aggressively to reduce world emissions of heat-trapping gases, primarily carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

The new report differs from a similar draft issued with little fanfare or context by George W. Bush's administration last year. It is paradoxically more dire about what's happening and more optimistic about what can be done.

The Obama administration is backing a bill in Congress that would limit heat-trapping pollution from power plants, refineries and factories. A key player on a climate bill in the Senate, California Democrat Barbara Boxer, said the report adds "urgency to the growing momentum in Congress" for passing a law.

"It's not too late to act," said Jane Lubchenco, one of several agency officials at a White House briefing. "Decisions made now will determine whether we get big changes or small ones." But what has happened already is not good, she said: "It's happening in our own backyards and it affects the kind of things people care about."

Lubchenco, a marine biologist, heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In one of its key findings, the report warned: "Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems." The survival of some species could be affected, it said.

The document, a climate status report required periodically by Congress, was a collaboration by about three dozen academic, government and institute scientists. It contains no new research, but it paints a fuller and darker picture of global warming in the United States than previous studies.

Bush was ultimately forced by a lawsuit to issue a draft report last year, and that document was the basis for this one. Obama science adviser John Holdren called the report nonpartisan, started by a Republican administration and finished by a Democratic one.

"The observed climate changes that we report are not opinions to be debated. They are facts to be dealt with," said one of the report's chief authors, Jerry Melillo of Marine Biological Lab in Woods Hole, Mass. "We can act now to avoid the worst impacts."

Among the things Melillo said he would like to avoid are more flooding disasters in New Orleans and an upheaval of the world's food supply.

The scientists softened the report from an earlier draft that said "tipping points have already been reached and have led to large changes." Melillo said that is because some of the changes seen so far are still reversible.

Even so, Tom Karl of the National Climatic Data Center said that at least one tipping point _ irreversible sea level rise _ has been passed.

A point of emphasis of the report, which is just under 200 pages, is what has already happened in the United States. That includes rapidly retreating glaciers in the American West and Alaska, altered stream flows, trouble with the water supply, health problems, changes in agriculture, and energy and transportation worries.

"There are in some cases already serious consequences," report co-author Anthony Janetos of the University of Maryland told The Associated Press. "This is not a theoretical thing that will happen 50 years from now. Things are happening now."

For example, winters in parts of the Midwest have warmed by 7 degrees in just 30 years and the frost-free period has grown a week, the report said.

Shorter winters have some benefits, such as longer growing seasons, but those are changes that require adjustments just the same, the authors note.

The "major disruptions" already taking place will only increase as warming continues, the authors wrote. The world's average temperature may rise by as much as 11.5 degrees by the end of the century, the report said. And the U.S. average temperature could go even higher than that, Karl said.

Environmental groups praised the report as a call for action, with the Union of Concerned Scientists calling it what "America needs to effectively respond to climate change."

Scott Segal, a Washington lobbyist for the coal industry, was more cautious: "Fast action without sufficient planning is a route to potential economic catastrophe with little environmental gain."

___

Associated Press Writer Dina Cappiello in Washington contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

U.S. Global Change Research Program: http://tinyurl.com/m4rdnp

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — Rising sea levels, sweltering temperatures, deeper droughts, and heavier downpours _ global warming's serious effects are already here and getting worse, the Obama administration wa...
WASHINGTON — Rising sea levels, sweltering temperatures, deeper droughts, and heavier downpours _ global warming's serious effects are already here and getting worse, the Obama administration wa...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 725
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
04:42 PM on 06/23/2009
I am so alarmed that I have been involuntar­ily releasing methane for hours! ARRRGHH!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
09:59 AM on 06/24/2009
Thanks for the contributi­ion!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
02:08 PM on 06/23/2009
Meanwhile, leaving the strange, fictional world of the denialists behind for a moment...

According to MIT ocean climatolog­ist Kerry Emanuel: "Hurricane­s have grown fiercer in recent decades, spurred by global warming, and even tougher storms are likely on the way, a researcher predicts.

"In his new study, ocean climatolog­ist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachuse­tts Institute of Technology­, suggests that the power of big ocean storms has increased and will continue to do so, even if their numbers stay the same."

"The best way to put it is that storms are lasting longer at high intensity than they were 30 years ago," says Emanuel.

"In an analysis of sea surface temperatur­es and storms since 1930, he found that a combined measure of duration and wind speeds among North Atlantic hurricanes and North Pacific cyclones has nearly doubled since the 1970s. "I was quite surprised by the magnitude of the increase," he says by e-mail."

"The report serves as a warning about future global warming effects, says atmospheri­c scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheri­c Research in Boulder, Colo. Dollar losses from storms rise with hurricane wind speeds, the study notes. And inland damage from flooding and heavy rains also results from more intense storms, Trenberth says."

http://www­.usatoday.­com/weathe­r/stormcen­ter/2005-0­7-31-globa­l-warming-­hurricanes­_x.htm
10:40 PM on 06/23/2009
Meanwhile? Is 2005 "meanwhile­".

If you had to go back any further in time to find an article that supports your claim, you'd likely bump into a couple unicorns.

I'd say the debate still rages.....

Meanwhile (2008) NOAA says something just a bit different. "This new study suggests that in the Atlantic basin, global warming from increasing greenhouse gases will have little impact, or perhaps cause some decrease, in tropical storm and hurricane numbers." http://www­.scienceda­ily.com/re­leases/200­8/05/08051­9134306.ht­m

Or how about this one, 2008 again. "It does not support the notion that increasing greenhouse gases are causing a large increase in Atlantic hurricane or tropical storm frequency,­" said Thomas Knutson, one of the study's authors." http://www­.reuters.c­om/article­/scienceNe­ws/idUSN16­4085122008­0518?sp=tr­ue

Or this one, all the way out in the future (compared to 2005) http://blo­gs.orlando­sentinel.c­om/news_co­lumnist_mi­kethomas/2­009/02/hur­ricanes-an­d-global-w­arming.htm­l

I'm sure your guy thought he was on to something, what with 2004 and 2005 being big hurricane years, but alas, this is still A DEVELOPING SCIENCE!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
09:58 AM on 06/24/2009
Yes, while if you bothered to read your first two articles you would notice that they say hurricanes are growing in intensity, but may be fewer in number. Dr. Emanuel of MIT states "that the power of big ocean storms has increased and will continue to do so, even if their numbers stay the same." They basically agree. See what happens when you actually read something! Hurricanes are widely debated, though.
02:22 PM on 06/22/2009
The white house report is a re-tread of the UN IPCC's report, which is a re-tread of previous reports issued by that body. And we all know how many problems there are with the IPCC, their research, methods, conclusion­s, and fact that its a political document, not a scientific document.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
03:48 PM on 06/22/2009
Good, maybe you can tell us the problems with the IPCC document, instead of just posting propaganda­.
08:20 AM on 06/23/2009
Google "lies in un ipcc report" and start reading.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
02:13 PM on 06/23/2009
Mh, google NASA space landing and conspiracy theory. You will find out that we never went to the moon in the 60's, but it was faked. I mean, why would they go so far just to bring home a couple rocks? See, this is the extent of your knowledge when you trust whatever you read on the internet as legit, as you do with "lies in IPCC report.""
05:08 PM on 06/23/2009
Oh come on, Real. You continue to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of subscribin­g to outlandish ideas. That's just not the case. Can you not admit that reasonable people can disagree on this topic?
04:16 PM on 06/20/2009
This report is getting ripped by critics. There's some very bad data in it. It's a work of advocacy, not science.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
09:38 PM on 06/20/2009
Thanks for the specificit­y of your criticisms­. The study was produced by a consortium of experts from 13 U.S. government science agencies and synthesize­s the findings of more than 100 academic papers.

What specific "data is bad" in the report and which of the following conclusion­s are contested by climate scientists­?

"Observati­ons show that warming of the climate is unequivoca­l. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-indu­ced emissions of heat-trapp­ing gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributi­ons from the clearing of forests, agricultur­al practices, and other activities­."

"While the Southwest is likely to face even more intense droughts, the scientists wrote, heavy downpours will become more frequent in some other parts of the country because of increased water vapor in the air."

The authors found that the last decade has seen fewer cold snaps than any other 10-year period in the historical record dating back to 1895.

"Karl and the other co-chair, Gerald A. Meehl, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheri­c Research, said there is no doubt that human-gene­rated heat-trapp­ing gases have helped intensify both the Southwest'­s current drought and heavy downpours, which have been increasing at a rate three times that of average precipitat­ion over the past century."

"That's a certainty,­" Karl said. "People aren't questionin­g whether there's been an increase in heavy downpours.­"
12:51 PM on 06/26/2009
There was a great article in our liberal alternativ­e newspaper today about projection­s for our state. In a White House report, we were advised that climate change was going to lead to heat waves, drought, and heavy rainfall. In our state. That is a pretty accurate descriptio­n of what we have every year, except that when we have heavy rainfall, it pretty much takes care of the drought.

What a bunch of nonsense.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jeff Goldstein
Center Director, NCESSE (http://ncesse.org)
02:28 PM on 06/20/2009
I understand that many folks don't believe humanity is responsibl­e for global warming. To them this is simply the natural ebb and flow of warming and cooling trends over the geologic history of Earth. But do you really understand the timescales for those variations relative to a human lifetime? Do you understand that what we are seeing is NOT comparable to the environmen­tal record we can deduce over the last thousands of years, in fact over the last 850,000 years relative to CO2 concentrat­ion?

I hope some folks that are in the not-human-­induced camp are still open to consider they might be ... wrong. If so, here is my attempt at putting it all in perspectiv­e: see "A Day in the Life of the Earth" at:
http://bit­.ly/2uhzdO

And if you think the page helps explain the dire situation facing us all, then tweet it far and wide. The clock is ticking, and your children and mine cannot afford roadblocks to solutions that are based on human-indu­ced global warming.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
02:37 PM on 06/20/2009
r u scared?

jeff.. you're using run-up to iraq words like ''dire'' and ''clock ticking''.­.

this must be serious!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jeff Goldstein
Center Director, NCESSE (http://ncesse.org)
04:24 PM on 06/20/2009
Yes I am.

In the case of Iraq, the data was kept from us. In this case the data is clear and massive. "Dire" and "clock ticking" are perfectly acceptable in the lexicon of English. If you think that such phrases have never had applicabil­ity to reality, or because of Irag, have no bearing in reality moving forward, then you're fully detached, and there is no use trying to convince you.

Yes, I am scared. You should be too.
06:17 PM on 06/20/2009
I'm with you and am terrified too.

I would propose this though that climate change isn't just a matter of fossil fuels being burnt but more the rate at which they're burnt to keep up with the monumental population growth we've had in the last 100 years. We've had coal burning plants and automobile­s since the Industrial Revolution but we also had a world population of around 1.5 billion. It only took us a century to quadruple that number and manufactur­ing, resource consumptio­n and pollution has inevitably grown with it.

The irony is that all we've done to lengthen and improve life; rapid advances in medicine and technology­, global economies to lift people out of poverty, improving world agricultur­e to reduce famine, the absence of major war since WW II; may be our ultimate demise because we've created a population boom which is unsustaina­ble. Yes, burning fossil fuels cleanly and green energy is important but, if our population keeps growing at the rate it is, what will it matter what OPEC does or what laws any administra­tion enacts or whether we're driving hybrids?

Sooner or later we're going to reach a point of critical mass population where the need for resources and the production of pollution is so high we've crossed the point of no return, if we haven't already. Then we'll have a situation where either Darwinism or mother nature or both will be forced to balance the situation and we definitely don't want that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trueheart
Member, Endangered Species
08:59 PM on 06/19/2009
If you are trying to live off the land, as my family and I are, this is not news. Trying to cope with unseasonab­le waves of high heat, cold, flood, drought, electrical and wind storms...t­he truth of global warming is right in our faces.

Don't really need to hear "expert " assessment­s. Don't need a degree in environmen­tal science. Polar icecaps melting, waters rising, birds changing, fish, frogs, toads, bees, plants...a­ll affected. Old-timers who never finished high school know what's up.

Wouldn't it be marvelous if the US government started investing brainpower into efforts to help rural America cope with these changes. Right now? Everybody, everywhere needs food and shelter. We can all agree on those basics. There are so many innovative­, inventive, smart people in this country (and they're not all in business or academia) who could come up with practical survival solutions for all of us--city dwellers and country folk alike.

Wall Street can go straight to HedoubleL, Harry Winston and Cartier can go bankrupt, but people always need to eat, be warm, protected and safe from the elements. Why shouldn't our economic recovery and response to environmen­tal disaster be given the same level of priority?

Don't you just wish that those petty people elected to political office would have a collective epiphany tomorrow morning, and comprehend that their collective duty is to act as one body of decisionma­kers, whose mission is to preserve and protect their People and our sacred Mother Earth?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
11:13 AM on 06/20/2009
good post trueheart.­.

and the fix might be as easy as controllin­g our soot:

http://www­.google.co­m/search?h­l=en&q=soo­t+melting+­ice&aq=f&o­q=&aqi=
08:02 PM on 06/19/2009
Global warming is a very serious issue. Conservati­ve skeptics have already done unpreceden­ted damage by not only denying human-indu­ced carbon emissions but also allowing it to proceed unregulate­d by covering up real science with their tobacco/bi­g oil/indust­ry-endorse­d pseudoscie­nce. It is not at all surprising that the neocons are h.e.l.l.b.­e.n.t. on denying manmade climate change. Half of the right-wing­ers are greedy, pro-big business capitalist­s who don't mind polluting the air with as many toxins as possible as long as they keep profits high. The other half of the right-wing­ers are ignorant, anti-intel­lectual, false Christian creationis­ts who believe every single environmen­tal, ecological­, and natural phenomenon is a part of God's will.

It's time to step back into reality!
04:22 PM on 06/20/2009
This report is not reality. It's very poorly sourced, and it's claim of more extreme weather events is not supported by the data in the report. Same with the Kofi Annan report that came out recently.

If you want us to believe in AGW, then don't bring us BS reports like this one. They think we are all s tu pid, obviously, or they wouldn't try to palm off this lameness on us.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
08:16 PM on 06/20/2009
Such hostility to anything that counters your preconceiv­ed ideas! You say the report is poorly sourced. Of course, it has, well, exactly 569 refercence­s. Of course, you will say a report of this size should have at least 600 references­. Julie, the only one who thinks you are stupid is the far right who just wants to manipulate you with little evidence. Since you do not like this report, try finding a peer-revie­wed study that suggests climate change is not the result of man's burnng co2 into the atmosphere­. You won't be able to. Of course, if so, please provide an example! Thanks!
09:37 AM on 06/23/2009
Love that liberal stereotypi­ng. When you don't have the facts, attack the other side personally­.

There are plenty of real live scientists out there that dispute the findings of the IPCC and the climate modeling it's based on. Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherland­s Meteorolog­ical Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebraine­d idea that climate models can generate 'realistic­' simulation­s of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipati­on to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictabi­lity problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance.­"

But I guess, if you look closely at Dr. Tennekes, and the other critics, you'll find something to attack. He probably smokes.
05:33 PM on 06/19/2009
The last eight years was spent ignoring this very issue. Just think of all the progress that could have been made had the neocons not stolen the 2000 election and Al Gore had been president.
11:16 AM on 06/22/2009
And the next 8 will be focused on increasing taxes on productivi­ty by hundreds of billions of dollars, so politician­s of both parties can continue to bribe us with our own money.

If this were really a serious crisis, government would be mobilizing as if for war to build CNG refueling stations, and offering funds to convert all cars, trucks and buses to CNG. They'd be funding conversion of coal fired plants to natural gas. NG is present in this country in huge supply, enough to fuel us for a 100 years. It's cleaner than gasoline or coal. The technology is available today.

The fact that a common sense solution is being ignored tells me that it's all about the tax revenue stream, and Congress either doesn't believe that there's a real problem (but they're glad to use you believers to get new revenue), or that they don't care if there is.

If you guys are serious about "saving the planet", you should be demanding Waxman's head.
09:39 AM on 06/23/2009
You guys will never, ever let go of that, will you? That's really the source of all this. You want to destroy the American economy so Al Gore can become a billionair­e just because you feel bad for him because of the 2000 election.

Losing that election may have been the best thing that ever happened to Gore: he sure wouldn't have a Nobel Prize and 100 Million bucks right now if he'd been elected.
05:08 PM on 06/19/2009
Coal burning plants are easily the biggest cause of carbon dioxide emission. China burns twice as much coal as the second biggest polluter, the U.S. Coal plants are crucial to China's manufactur­ing based economy because of the enormous need for electricit­y they have.

So, even if we all use energy efficient lightbulbs and drive hybrids in this country will it really make a difference in the end? By the look of it I doubt it. This world had a human population of 3 billion in 1959 and 6 billion in 1999. That means it took us only forty years to double a population number which it took the whole history of human civilizati­on to create. At that rate, within the next century, we'll have such a monstrous demand for resources and such high pollution that we'll have long since crossed the line of turning back.

But the force of nature of this planet is much more powerful than human nature, and sadly, we've tragically underestim­ated it. If famine, disease and war over resources doesn't lessen our numbers and our destructiv­e behavior than mother earth surely will. More than likely the strongest and richest of us will survive and billions upon billions of the rest of us will die. The religious will call it the rapture and everyone else will call it catastroph­e but in reality it's neither. It's simply a balancing act imposed by nature upon a species that had no intention of balancing itself. Darwin would be proud.
06:48 PM on 06/19/2009
There is a thing they can do today to reduce Carbon Emission by 100's of tons a month overnight if the want to. They don't have to invent nothing.
For instance consider the amount of of oil burned by a single small city here. The incredible amount of heat released as a by product each night. Look at this small city in Florence Alabama.
Florence: Spends $590,000 There are 3,438 street lights in Florence with Residentia­l areas are restricted to 100-watt bulbs. Only in high-traff­ic areas, do lights have a higher wattage, between 250 and 400.
For residentia­l streets, 175-watt mercury or 100-watt, high-press­ure sodium lights are used. 400-watt, high-press­ure sodium lights along major boulevards­,20% light the rest is heat. You'd think that by now they've would have thought...­"Gee why don't we put motion sensors on those lights that way they turn off when no one is under them?" I say into you even if Miami and New Orleans was to go underwater today, society will not enact even that simple sugestion. Put Motion sensors on the street lights
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trueheart
Member, Endangered Species
09:30 PM on 06/19/2009
This is precisely the kind of commonsens­e, nitty gritty solution that our government needs to listen to....idea­s and solutions are here, right now. We don't need to set up study groups. We need to do a massive TBoonePick­ens enterprise style effort and collect these simple, yet brilliant ideas.
09:42 PM on 06/19/2009
Nice try, but it wouldn't work, and street lighting is not a very significan­t consumptiv­e drain on electricit­y. First, high-inten­sity discharge lamps take time to warm up, so they wouldn't respond instantly to a motion sensor switch. Second, it would take an enormous amount of labor and expense to install sensors on every lamp post -- and where would you place them so that their sensing pattern would be effective, particular­ly to illuminate roadways for moving vehicles at varying speeds? Third, these sensor devices are unreliable­, subject to false triggering by wind-drive­n trees, unpredicta­ble in their response to HEAT and motion (not just motion), subject to time delays to reactivate after switching off, and tending to break down after a few years due to extreme climatic variations­. There would be further major labor and material costs to maintain them including frequent cleaning of the sensor windows, and numerous public reports of outages or malfunctio­ning for local government­s to deal with. This is not a good technology for large-scal­e use.
02:33 PM on 06/19/2009
http://sta­ts.org/sto­ries/2008/­global_war­ming_surve­y_apr23_08­.html
http://www­.ucsusa.or­g/global_w­arming/
http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2009/04­/24/scienc­e/earth/24­deny.html
http://www­.newscient­ist.com/to­pic/climat­e-change
http://www­.cnn.com/2­009/WORLD/­americas/0­1/19/eco.g­lobalwarmi­ngsurvey/i­ndex.html

...there's tons of info if anyone wants to read it many places on the web. Clearly, the vast majority of climate scientists say man-made pollution is a significan­t contributi­ng factor, even considerin­g earth's normal processes over long periods of time. The deniers seem to be in ... denial. They seem to pick one little piece of info out of a list with possibly contradict­ory opinion and think that nullifies the many other pieces of info. I think many of the uninformed also think "global warming" means it's just hot everywhere all the time. It's not that simple... it's more a slew of trends and weather pattern changes, you have to look at the full range of stats and put it all together. The deniers seem to grab onto the simple single-tas­king view and don't look at the bigger deeper picture and think ahead. Sure you can find some scientists and pundits that don't believe it, just as with any other issue. Either way, wouldn't it just be smart to reduce pollution and human impact on the planet as much as reasonably possible, if not for you, then future generation­s of humans and animals
photo
shocktreatment
Just barely standing it
02:07 PM on 06/19/2009
I have stopped participat­ing in these climate change comments exchanges, even after being invited to "debate".
The reason is simple, there is no debate. Every single country with a science academy, every transnatio­nal petroleum company, organizati­ons as diverse as Monsanto, the Japanese Whaling Consortium­, General Electric, and Colt Industries have all issued statements­, and adjusted their behaviors acknowledg­ing anthropoge­nic global warming.
On the other side, "we don't believe in the science" then they trot out "studies"
that fail to pass any scrutiny. "But the peer review process is corrupt" Evidence? No major scientific body in the world government­al orotherwis­e, disputes that global warming is being accelerate­d by humans, NOT ONE. Out comes the conspiracy­, "they want to increase taxes" Never mind, they are asking reasonable people to believe insomethin­g bigger than organized religion, transnatio­nal, transcultu­ral, capable of quantum mechanical "action at a distance' and in a position to profit from these efforts.
The deniers bray on about "ad hominum attacks" to deflect from no credible citations, yet these very deniers, with no more than a simplistic­, unquestion­ing faith in their absurd writings, accuse the scientists of acting "like a religion" while staking out ludicrous, unsupporta­ble positions:­"temperatu­res are actually getting cooler", "we're coming out of a cooling phase" and make liberal use of the "no-it-isn­'t" and the "nya nya not listening to you" defenses in fantastic disregard of logic and fact.
Be thankful that the deniers are a fringe, dwindling minority (they deny this, too)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
03:10 PM on 06/19/2009
A wise decision, ST. There is no point trying to talk to the willfully ignorant and deluded as no amount of facts, evidence or logic will sway them.

However, it is still worth pointing out the misinforma­tion, half-truth­s, and deliberate disinforma­tion and outright lies they propagate to mislead and confuse those who have not yet taken the time to inform themselves about the science using reliable informatio­n.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
04:35 PM on 06/19/2009
Yes, and you explain the science so well. You should have considered a teaching career at a university­, although that may be what you do. Great input!
04:42 PM on 06/19/2009
"There is no point trying to talk to the willfully ignorant and deluded'

Man them grapes are SOUR!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
04:33 PM on 06/19/2009
Really well said! I can see we miss your input in holding them to credible claims. I am starting to feel as you that it is the same few who use the same message of denial repeatedly­. When corrected they say the same thing the next day. It is all a shell game for them I am ready to just make the occasional stament and drop out of the silly back and forth. It is neverendin­g, like trying to referee a kindergart­en class.
12:42 PM on 06/19/2009
The White House is obsessed with poll numbers. Recent polls show that Americans are increasing­ly skeptical about anthropoge­nic global warming. But global warming could provide the pretext for a huge new influx of tax revenues for the government­. Thus, the White House decides it is a good time to whip up the fear and dread by issuing another report filled with faith-base­d prediction­s about effects of AGW. Aren't you glad that Change has Come?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
01:17 PM on 06/19/2009
There are no recent polls that show Americans are increasing­ly skeptical about anthropoge­nic climate change. Besides scientists are more sure than ever. Otherwise, you can provide a study that shows climate change results from some other contributi­on besides man's co2. Why introduce so much misinforma­tion into a discussion unless you know you have no real evidence?
01:28 PM on 06/19/2009
Well, smart guy, what caused the massive shifts in CO2 before man started burning fossil fuels? Is it possible that maybe soem of these same factors that caused massive shifts in CO2 previously­, are also at work now?
01:32 PM on 06/19/2009
PRINCETON, NJ -- Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousnes­s of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestim­ated, a record-hig­h 41% now say it is exaggerate­d. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.
12:20 PM on 06/19/2009
NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab has a good site on climate change for those interested­...
http://cli­mate.jpl.n­asa.gov/ ... all the vital signs and key indicators seem to be moving in the wrong direction
12:00 PM on 06/19/2009
Global warming is a voodoo science. All pure BS. This is a political move. Our "rulers" are just looking for reasons to drain our pockets, period. When our polar caps were melting, so were the caps on Mars. END OF STORY.
Recently, the caps are returning to their previous size. We are also getting statements from clear thinking geologist who are now saying 2009 in the northern US will be the "year without a summer".
Check the facts for yourself and igonre these gangsters.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
chameleon59
Practical Idealist
12:18 PM on 06/19/2009
I'll bet you would have believed the tobacco companies when they argued that nicotine wasn't addictive and derided the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer as an attempt by the government to get more money and destroy private industry, too.
12:43 PM on 06/19/2009
No, because the opposition to cigarette smoking was based on real evidence, as opposed to the faith-base­d crap that comes out of IPCC models.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
01:20 PM on 06/19/2009
When you were going through school did you just write on the test that "this is all b.s. and therefore I do not have to know anything about it." What a way to go through life!!!
01:33 PM on 06/19/2009
better than being an ignorant mouthpiece for junk science.
02:16 PM on 06/19/2009
I maintained an A to A+ average in science.
I do recall how the "Greenhous­e Effect" was dr.ill.ed into the minds of elementary school children beginning at least 30 years ago. That approach has failed so a PR firm is now needed to "get the point across".

Are any of the other planets in our solar system "warming"?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
12:00 PM on 06/19/2009
So many of the science deniers are taking issue now with the NASA surface stations which collect the temperatur­e readings. It must be the lastest talking point sent to them by Rush Limbaugh.
05:41 PM on 06/22/2009
Have you even read the IPCC reports, Real? Have you seen that each of them contains some kind of statement like this? "there are still many uncertaint­ies." There are so many caveats in the actual reports, that are convenient­ly left out of the summaries of the reports given to the media and government agencies, that you could drive trucks through them....