White House Climate Change Report Issues Dire Warning On Worsening Situation

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - White House Climate Change Report Issues Dire Warning On Worsening Situation stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

SETH BORENSTEIN | 06/16/09 08:52 PM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It

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.

Story continues below
advertisement

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

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...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
725
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)
- vie2012ne I'm a Fan of vie2012ne 21 fans permalink

I am so alarmed that I have been involuntarily releasing methane for hours! ARRRGHH!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 06/23/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

Thanks for the contributiion!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 AM on 06/24/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

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

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:08 PM on 06/23/2009
- mh01 I'm a Fan of mh01 25 fans permalink

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!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 PM on 06/23/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 AM on 06/24/2009
- mh01 I'm a Fan of mh01 25 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 PM on 06/22/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

Good, maybe you can tell us the problems with the IPCC document, instead of just posting propaganda.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:48 PM on 06/22/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

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.""

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 06/23/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

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?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:08 PM on 06/23/2009
- JulieSA I'm a Fan of JulieSA 157 fans permalink
photo

This report is getting ripped by critics. There's some very bad data in it. It's a work of advocacy, not science.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 06/20/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

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."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:38 PM on 06/20/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 06/26/2009
- Jeff Goldstein - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Jeff Goldstein 8 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 06/20/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 72 fans permalink
photo

r u scared?

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

this must be serious!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 06/20/2009
- Jeff Goldstein - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Jeff Goldstein 8 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:24 PM on 06/20/2009
photo

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:17 PM on 06/20/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

We've been hearing this same sky is falling hysteria for 20 years, and it just isn't happening. I think you guys picked the wrong leader for your program.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C016%5C591lnajh.asp

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 PM on 06/23/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

The sky fell and they picked it back up!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 AM on 06/24/2009
- Trueheart I'm a Fan of Trueheart 39 fans permalink
photo

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?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:59 PM on 06/19/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 72 fans permalink
photo

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=

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 AM on 06/20/2009
photo

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!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:02 PM on 06/19/2009
- JulieSA I'm a Fan of JulieSA 157 fans permalink
photo

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:22 PM on 06/20/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

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!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:16 PM on 06/20/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 AM on 06/23/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C016%5C591lnajh.asp

False Christian creationists? Greedy, probusiness capitalists?

How about all the global warming proponents are either on the government dole as fed employees or as grant receipients, or they're mindless cult followers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 PM on 06/23/2009
photo

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:33 PM on 06/19/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 AM on 06/22/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:39 AM on 06/23/2009
photo

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:08 PM on 06/19/2009
photo

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

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:48 PM on 06/19/2009
- Trueheart I'm a Fan of Trueheart 39 fans permalink
photo

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:30 PM on 06/19/2009
- Humanistic I'm a Fan of Humanistic 18 fans permalink
photo

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:42 PM on 06/19/2009
photo

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

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 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)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:07 PM on 06/19/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 24 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:10 PM on 06/19/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

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!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:35 PM on 06/19/2009
photo

"There is no point trying to talk to the willfully ignorant and deluded'

Man them grapes are SOUR!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 06/19/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

Much the way the IPCC and Al Gore have propagandized this topic, Exusian.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:29 PM on 06/23/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 06/19/2009
- Trueheart I'm a Fan of Trueheart 39 fans permalink
photo

Let's ignore the officials and the private interests who "deny." Open the floodgates, and let innovative, practical solutions to mediating world climate change rise to the surface. All over the world, people have got to join hands and tell their leaders that the time is NOW and that common people have practical knowledge which can help all nations to deal with this planetary crisis.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 PM on 06/19/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

Shock, this article cites only peer-reviewed scientist who have alternate takes on global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 AM on 06/22/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

A review of IPCC predictions and the actual outcomes: http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

a list of peer-reviewed skeptical scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

an article disputing the "ice melt" theories: http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/glaciers-and-sea-ice-melting-or-growing.html

A summary of scientific opinion on the IPCC: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4511

A summary of skeptical viewpoints, referencing published work: http://www.planet-warming.com/4.%20The%20Skeptical%20Viewpoints.htm

A blog with a collection of critical viewpoints: http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=97

Shock, this is a tiny bit of the information I've collected over the last year. To disparage those who disagree with you as you do is beneath your usual high level of commentary. I would commend you to the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming", a very thorough treatment of the Gore/IPCC approach. Read it cover to cover, and find and study the cited reports. Read IPCC 1-4 and look at the dramatic inconsistencies between the actual reports and the "summaries" that are given to governments. The more you read, the less you'll believe. If you just WANT to believe, so be it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:29 PM on 06/23/2009
- vie2012ne I'm a Fan of vie2012ne 21 fans permalink

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?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 PM on 06/19/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

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?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 PM on 06/19/2009
- vie2012ne I'm a Fan of vie2012ne 21 fans permalink

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?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:28 PM on 06/19/2009
- vie2012ne I'm a Fan of vie2012ne 21 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 PM on 06/19/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 24 fans permalink

"what caused the massive shifts in CO2 before man started burning fossil fuels?"

Example 1:
Temperature changes first at the end of an ice age when solar insolation increases due to changes in Earth's orbit and tilt of axis. (The Milankovic Cycles. The sun itself does not become more intense.) As the glacial ice cap slowly melts and recedes less incoming sunlight is reflected back out to space, so it warms even more. As it does, permafrost thaws and releases trapped CO2 and methane, which being greenhouse gases, act as amplifying feedbacks causing still more warming. Finally, as the ocean warms, which takes a long time (hence the lag between temperature and CO2), it can hold less dissolved CO2 and so begins to emit more of it into the atmosphere than it absorbs, thus making it warmer still. The increase in CO2 levels between a glacial period and an interglacial is from 180 ppm to 280 ppm, causing a global mean temperature difference of 6C/10.8F. Since 1750 CO2 has gone up a further 100+ ppm to ~387 ppm, raising global mean temp by around ~0.8C/1.5F, but since the ocean takes longer to warm than the atmosphere and land surface do, there is more warming "in the pipeline" even if CO2 levels were to not rise any further.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 PM on 06/19/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 24 fans permalink

Example 2:
At the boundary between the Paleocene and Eocene epochs 55 million years ago there was a massive spike in both atmospheric CO2 and surface temperature, which produced a minor mass extinction event (much smaller and more limited than the one that killed off the dinosaurs 65 mya). It's known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. The surge in atmospheric CO2 is thought to have been caused by a sudden and massive pulse of methane from frozen sea-bed methane clathrate ice that was disturbed and melted by an already rising temperature trend (average surface temp was already around 5C/9F warmer than present), or possibly by an impact event. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, hence the sharp temperature spike, but it rapidly oxidizes into CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere, so although it's full impact is short lived, its carbon remains it the atmosphere as CO2 for a much longer time, and since the atmosphere warmed with the methane spike, it could also hold more H2O, thus there was a greenhouse triple-hitter of more methane, CO2 and H2O.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 06/19/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 24 fans permalink

Example 3:
At one time atmospheric CO2 levels were may times higher than they are today, and temperatures were also much higher as well. But since the dawn of life on Earth, CO2 has been steadily removed from Earth's atmosphere by life itself, particularly by life forms that use CO2 to build their shells or permanent structures, such as the stromatolites built up by cyanobacteria, coral reefs, and the hard outer shells of maine organisms, from shell fish to the hard shelled plankton that forms limestone. All of the limestone on Earth contains carbon that was once in the atmosphere. So does coal and petroleum, the so-called fossil carbon fuels. They were formed from dead peat and swamp plants (coal) and marine plankton (oil), which had removed CO2 from the atmosphere by photosynthesis.

continued...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 PM on 06/19/2009
photo

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

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:20 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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 PM on 06/19/2009
- vie2012ne I'm a Fan of vie2012ne 21 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 06/19/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

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!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 PM on 06/19/2009
- vie2012ne I'm a Fan of vie2012ne 21 fans permalink

better than being an ignorant mouthpiece for junk science.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 PM on 06/19/2009
photo

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"?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 PM on 06/19/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 24 fans permalink

What level of school science, CH?

Grade school, high school, undergrad college?

General science, earth science, physics?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 PM on 06/19/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 24 fans permalink

"END OF STORY"

Exactly, you made up your mind a long time ago. Why bother looking and the evidence *before* you reach your conclusion. Why that would be....

... science.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:18 PM on 06/19/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

Exusian, are you open-minded? Do you review any of the critical literature?

Here's a paragraph by paragraph review of the errors in the IPCC report: perhaps you can test your belief in the scientific method by reviewing this. Or not.

http://www.planet-warming.com/4.%20The%20Skeptical%20Viewpoints.htm

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 06/22/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 139 fans permalink

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.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 PM on 06/19/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

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....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:41 PM on 06/22/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect