We've Arrived at a Moment of Decision
My opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today:
We are here today to talk about how we as Americans and how the United States of America as part of the global community should address the dangerous and growing threat of the climate crisis.
We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home - Earth - is in grave danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.
Moreover, we must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization at a time when our country must simultaneously solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its deepest recession since the 1930s. And our national security is endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex challenge of ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the military and political struggle in Afghanistan.
As we search for solutions to all three of these challenges, it is becoming clearer that they are linked by a common thread - our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels. As long as we continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign oil - year after year - to the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world, our national security will continue to be at risk.
As long as we continue to allow our economy to remain shackled to the OPEC rollercoaster of rising and falling oil prices, our jobs and our way of life will remain at risk.
Moreover, as the demand for oil worldwide grows rapidly over the longer term, even as the rate of new discoveries is falling, it is increasingly obvious that the roller coaster is headed for a crash. And we're in the front car.
Most importantly, as long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points which scientists have repeatedly warned - again just yesterday - will threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet.
We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.
For years our efforts to address the growing climate crisis have been undermined by the idea that we must choose between our planet and our way of life; between our moral duty and our economic well being. These are false choices. In fact, the solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well.
In order to repower our economy, restore American economic and moral leadership in the world and regain control of our destiny, we must take bold action now.
The first step is already before us. I urge this Congress to quickly pass the entirety of President Obama's Recovery package. The plan's unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas - energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid and the move to clean cars - represent an important down payment and are long overdue. These crucial investments will create millions of new jobs and hasten our economic recovery - while strengthening our national security and beginning to solve the climate crisis.
Quickly building our capacity to generate clean electricity will lay the groundwork for the next major step needed: placing a price on carbon. If Congress acts right away to pass President Obama's Recovery package and then takes decisive action this year to institute a cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions - as many of our states and many other countries have already done - the United States will regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks with a renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective treaty. And this treaty must be negotiated this year.
Not next year. This year.
A fair, effective and balanced treaty will put in place the global architecture that will place the world - at long last and in the nick of time - on a path toward solving the climate crisis and securing the future of human civilization.
I am hopeful that this can be achieved. Let me outline for you the basis for the hope and optimism that I feel.
The Obama administration has already signaled a strong willingness to regain U.S.leadership on the global stage in the treaty talks, reversing years of inaction. This is critical to success in Copenhagen and is clearly a top priority of the administration.
Developing countries that were once reluctant to join in the first phases of a global response to the climate crisis have themselves now become leaders in demanding action and in taking bold steps on their own initiatives. Brazil has proposed an impressive new plan to halt the destructive deforestation in that nation. Indonesia has emerged as a new constructive force in the talks. And China's leaders have gained a strong understanding of the need for action and have already begun important new initiatives.
Heads of state from around the world have begun to personally engage on this issue and forward-thinking corporate leaders have made this a top priority.
More and more Americans are paying attention to the new evidence and fresh warnings from scientists. There is a much broader consensus on the need for action than there was when President George H.W. Bush negotiated - and the Senate ratified - the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and much stronger support for action than when we completed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
The elements that I believe are key to a successful agreement in Copenhagen include:
- Strong targets and timetables from industrialized countries and differentiated butbinding commitments from developing countries that put the entire world under a system with one commitment: to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and otherglobal warming pollutants that cause the climate crisis;
- The inclusion of deforestation, which alone accounts for twenty percent of the emissions that cause global warming;
- The addition of sinks including those from soils, principally from farmlands and grazing lands with appropriate methodologies and accounting. Farmers and ranchers in the U.S. and around the world need to know that they can be part of the solution;
- The assurance that developing countries will have access to mechanisms and resources that will help them adapt to the worst impacts of the climate crisis and technologies to solve the problem; and,
- A strong compliance and verification regime.
The road to Copenhagen is not easy, but we have traversed this ground before. We have negotiated the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we have banned most of the major substances that create the ozone hole over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.
|
Gore: Bad Economy Is Time For "Decisive Action" On Global Warming
WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore presented lawmakers on Wednesday with a new inconvenient truth: Action on global warming cannot wait until the economy...
|
Al Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Loading comments…
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
The fact that global temperatures have been rising rapidly over past few decades is established beyond question. The photographic evidence is also beyond question, of melting mountain-glaciers on EVERY CONTINENT --- Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North and South Americas, Indian subcontinent, and in major icefields in Greenland, North Pole, and South Pole (Antarctica). Those who question that can rent the award-winning video documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" from Blockbuster and check out the evidence for themselves.
The highly correlated causal relationship with the rapid rise of CO2 carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is also scientific fact beyond question.
It is also overwhelming and serious scientific consensus that the dual trends of rapid rise in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration levels are reaching critical "climatic tipping points". When those transition points are surpassed, many known and unknown mutually reinforcing large forces come into play. The combined effects of those rapidly and vastly accelerating forces will push the RATES OF CLIMATIC DETERIORATION beyond collective human remedies. At that stage, planet Earth would be on an irrecoverable fast track towards extinction of human and other forms of life.
Now is the critically short transition period when humankind needs to ask the overarching MORAL QUESTION of the MEANING AND PURPOSE OF EXISTENCE OF LIFE. The issues to deal with and the questions to be answered by the global human community --- collectively and each thinking person individually, are no less weighty than that.
If the sky is falling, then Albert Gore should remain in Tennessee and do
everything with videoconferencing through the Internet (He invented
that, right!). Nobody can build a solar-powered plane powerful enough to
lift Mr Gore off the ground.
All the so-called bad effects of global warming relate to water: snow caps,
glaciers, drought, changing ocean levels but the focus is on carbon dioxide,
not water. I see human use of water as a bigger issue than carbon dioxide.
Haste makes waste. Having lost much treasure from the stockmarket crash,
everybody is looking for the next bubble, the next "hot" thing to boost their
bank accounts as quickly as possible. And "green" energy seems to be the next bubble;
this bubble will be flatter than the previous ones.
Before you toss off a little joke(?) about Gore "inventing" the internet you should really check your facts. Your joke is tired and old and makes YOU sound like an uninformed id iot who gets their talking points from on high. Gore never said he "invented anything, he said that he helped it along......which he did. The "joke" was passed along in a desperate attempt to cover up W's rather lame joke and delivery.
Here is the site you can read.....
http://archive.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/
As far as Gore's weight.....whether he is the size of a blimp or as skinny as a willow takes nothing away from the veracity of his words. However, personal attacks are always good for distraction when your argument is uninformed and poor. That technique is used all the time. See if you can find it.
Your point about water? You're right. What most scientists and people concerned about global warming or climate change are talking about is that loss of water is one of the byproducts of increased carbon dioxide. Humans would have more fresh water to use if climate change did not result in drought, more el ninas, and poor snowpack.
.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
.
Let's print the entire quote....not just the out of context part, OK?
What she said in entirety is this.....
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. What should we as a nation do?
.......Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.......
But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”
As a scientist, I would expect her to remain skeptical. That is her job as scientist.
Her quote contained the part that said she was skeptical.....granted.
But it also contained a part that said the data was not complete (often the case in science) and that the consequences are so grave that we must follow Gore's advice.
Isn't it enlightening when you get all the information?
.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
.
So? He's skeptical. He is a scientist not a priest. One of the most valuable assets that a scientist has is his/her septicism. That and their curiosity.
He's right it has become a "new religion". That cuts both ways. Some are determined to prove THEIR way is right and there are others determined to prove THEIR way is right. Science is rarely so cut and dry that it is 100% provable.
Both sides are both behaving outrageously.
We have to consider that we don't have much time left and the stakes are huge if the IPCC is correct. The destruction and extinction of the human race hangs in the balance.
Do you want to bet it all in this game of cosmic russian roulette???
Has anyone even considered what the release of carbon dioxide, ash, and other pollutants from the emminent eruption of Mt Redoubt in Alaska will do to climate change?? Certainly humans can't be blamed for THAT. Nor can they be blamed for the fact that we are omnivores, and therefore are supposed to eat red meat, which naturally produces methane from the cows and pigs and chickens many of us eat.
How about we try less blaming and more trying to find solutions??
Solution One: give up being an omnivore. It's a choice, not a requirement.
"Nor can they be blamed for the fact that we are omnivores, and therefore are supposed to eat red meat"
I'm sorry but being an omnivore does not mean we are "supposed" to eat red meat. It does mean that our systems can survive on eating a variety of meat or vegetables or fish. This is opposed to being herbivores or carnivores.
As long as our systems get the proper amount of proteins, carbohydrate, fats, and sugars found in the plant kingdom we can live. Ask plenty of healthy vegetarians or vegans.
You need to go back and study your 3rd grade science.
Real World applications???
1967: Development of Solar cracking of water and the Water Flame. Cold Fire.
1967: Remediation of asbestoses.
1967: Non-Rusting Steels, using Water as a Fuel.
1969: Water Fuel production of Glass.
1972: Water Fuel for Rocket Propulsion.
1977: Hard Rock drilling using Water as a Fuel.
1982: Developed synthetic #9 hardness crystalline structures.
1982: Water Fuel. Abrasives, diamond-like cutting blades, grinding and abrasive cloths.
1984: Remediation of Nuclear Waste.
1986: Welding Aluminum, with no shielding gasses.
1986: High Pressure Cutting of 6 inch plate.
1986: Electrolytic Fuel Cell. Reverse Hydroxy Process.
1989: Photo Sensitivity of Hydroxy. Hydroxel Solar Cells.
1992: HHO Welders in China, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Philippines, Mexico, Canada, Germany, England, France. 65 Countries.
1997: Hard Rock and Open Pit Mining using Hydroxy Water Fuel.
ALL SOLAR POWERED!
Look it up!
Google and youtube,,
Browns Gas,
Hydroxy,
HHO and HOH.
Water Fuels.
Hydro-Flame.
The Bible; Read Geniuses 1.
The Qur’an; Read Smokeless fire.
All the best
Knute
Farmers DO KNOW THIS!
We use worms.
Worms will consume 50% of their mass in organic waste,, PER DAY!
Worms convert sands and fine gravels into dissolved mineral salts. They have no teeth. In their gut, these same sands are converted to fertilizers. NOT the organics,,,, BUT THE SAND. Ready for the uptake into plants.
From the stone of the earth.
Worm castings are better than Bat Guano, NOT HOT and Ph Balanced. Ready for use and differentiated in nutrient by the SANDS fed to the worms.
A thousand pounds of worms can turn a pile of weeds, fodder, and manure the height of a barn,,, into pure,, organic,,, fertilizers in three weeks time.
Worm castings turned into the soils include millions of worm eggs. These eggs then hatch and till the soil down three feet deep. FOR FREE! Critical oxygen is brought right to the roots of plants; water can percolate into the soil with ease, even hardpan soils can be turned rich and fertile overnight.
Dehydrated worms make excellent cattle feed and protein supplement.
Mr. Gore,,, in the 50s,, Government men came and made us stop. They had charts showing how much commercial fertilizers we needed to use and where to buy them.
The Government men said that if we didn’t switch to chemical fertilizers they would shut down our farm and de-certify our milk.
The Government men forced us to use to commercial fertilizers.
BY LAW!
All the best
Knute
At a family reunion we were discussing modern agriculture (two of my uncles are retired farmers, and my father grew up on the farm back in the 50s. The best way to explain organic agriculture to them was that it was exactly what my grandfather had done when they were growing up in the 40s and 50s. They can see what their own agricultural careers have done to the land, as they were caught up in the agricultural revolution.
Well,, my Grandpa and Grandma taught me these things.
We also used to make our own tractor fuels. An old Ford tractor. Old even then in the 50s. But it ran fine,, burned clean and never needed work.
Yes,, Grandpa would sometimes drink,, many folks drank a little back then. For the tractor, Grandpa mixed the alcohol with a tiny bit of filtered, used motor oil and we ran our tractor with it. FOR FREE!
Well,, the Government men came made him stop making alcohol too. The threatened to arrest him!
The Government men forced us to start buying gasoline from town.
BY LAW!
All the best
Knute
I like your stance. Just a note to make your case: The sand grains you are thinking of are probably not quartz sands - the most common mineral grains of sand - because there is nothing of nutritional value in silica. It could be other mineral sands.
Yes for roses,, use Iron Rich sands. Iron Oxide! For Lettuce or Cabbage use soils and sands from a dry lake. For Wheat, Sorghum, Corn or pasture grasses use sands from the mountain top, Granite sands.
Please remember, you can put chickens on a calcium restricted diet, and as long as they have selenium,, their eggs will be strong shelled and calcium rich.
Nature will find a way.
All the best
Knute
Yes. I had a friend who grew up on a dairy farm. It is no longer a dairy because this same thing happened to her family's place. It is now a suburb developement.
It started with lobbyists with big agri-business who influenced congressmen to pass laws in DC.
Once there is money to be had in going green, we'll see many companies joining the effort. I heard that contrary to popular belief, China will lead the way in green techology because it'll recognize the huge financial benefits of manufacturing related equipment and products. Nice article, Mr. Gore. Thanks
Addendum: The scariest thing also is that the senators don't know anything about nuclear energy and keep saying that we need nuclear energy in this country. They don't know anything about reprocessing and are supposed to be the leaders that make decisions that affect all of our lives. You'd think that they would know the most, not least, on the topic. But then again, I'm just a cranky ol' lady.....
Liberton, More and more people are getting it everyday. Pricing carbon is a way for global government to control money and people. The current head of EEC says so. There is no proposed solution only shared sacrifice and more costs.
I have to ask: what are your views on warrantless wiretaps and no more habeous corpus? I know you guys like to preach small government, but your team did more to expand the size, intrusiveness, cost and secrecy of the government than any Soviet could have dreamt of.
Oh - and it hasn't been called the EEC for about 17 years now. And I can assure you that Vaclav Klaus in no way represents the prevailing EU view on climate change or the measures to combat it.
Do you ever think about how regressive and anti-growth overpricing energy would be? It's amazing to watch the liberals in the news media: First there will be one sob story about people losing their homes, jobs, can't pay for health care, on and on... Then there will be a story about all these things we need to do about the climate "crisis"
And there is a complete disconnect between the two. Hasn't anyone ever thought "Wait a minute, we're talking about imposing a whole bunch of new/extra costs on these people from the last story who can't make ends meet as it is."?
If switching to a renewable green future is going to cause pain, then why not right now?
We are facing economic pain and huge disruptions anyways, its not like we would be upsetting a smooth running applecart. I can't think of a better time for change than a time of turmoil. Think of it as an entrepreneur finding opportunity in adversity, the sign of a nimble mind.
Gas in the U.S. is UNDERPRICED given that the external costs associated with burning a gallon of gas (everything from pollution to the cost of patrolling the Persian Gulf) are paid for by your taxes, and not the price at the pump.
More to the point, though, is that there is a solution to your concern: have any increase in gas taxes be deductible on your federal tax return. By switching the tax burden to consumption and away from income makes for much better policy than what we have now.
Finally, gas in The Netherlands is 3-4x what it is in the states. And yet they have had comparable standards of living and growth rates to the US. And the end result is an economy that uses far less energy per unit of GDP than does the US. This increased efficiency is a tremendous comparative advantage, and will be even more so when gas prices when the economy recovers and energy prices go up again.
It's such a guy thing. There's something about the traditional approach to energy development that reminds me of guys; they always want to play in the dirt, roll in the mud. If it's not dirty, we don't want it. We don't want the wimpy solar, wind and fuel cell energy. Real men don't do solar. We're macho and want coal, extruded oil shale and nuclear. I guess this is my recommendation to populate congress with 1/3 women to get a full spectrum of leadership for our country. We've sat on these changes long enough; they've been languishing around for decades. Anytime they are brought up, there is still a whine....oh, we're moving too fast, we can't do this, can't afford it....blah, blah, blah.
Do you ever get the feeling that we're dragging these old fellows in congress along? They are dinosaurs....Mea culpa - I have great respect for the hard work that they do on some issues, however, we have to be careful that there may be a glaring inadequacy of ability on this topic that on balance we will pay for.
Hey - I've installed solar water heaters. And while I don't mind getting my hands dirty, I prefer my planet to be on the clean side.
When it becomes apparent that when there is an increase in women involved in positions of power in business and implementation of green energy is also good for business....only then....will things start to change in the country and the government. I feel things are starting to change out here. It is hopeful that so many young people are now involved.
Congress is not really changing yet.....they will change after the people do. They have always been a little behind.
Just for once, I would like to see the environmentalists come up with a REAL solution instead of guilt-tripping us. Invent a solar-electric panel that's more than 16% efficient. Let's see you build a 100 mpg car. Build a nuclear fusion power plant. DO SOMETHING!
Instead, Mr. Gore says we should put a price on carbon. That's exactly what we need; another way for the Wall Street Whiz Kids and Washington to scam more money out of working people. I just can not believe so many people are falling for this.
Perfection of nuclear fusion would be the one think that could keep our civilization at its current high level and prevent the destruction of our biosphere. Unfortunately, it was 50 years in the future 50 years ago, and is 50 years in the future today. The unfortunate truth is that the bulk of humanity will not allow painful measures to be taken until it is too late. Our civilization is a highballing freight train headed for a wall called resource depletion and climate change. The irony is that the depletion won't happen fast enough to save the climate.
Its a shame.
The figure I normally hear is 30 years... But yea, if someone was serious about this energy/climate "crisis", they would be working on that. Or a cheap, lightweight, high-capacity battery for electric cars. Or something. But it's really all about money and control over people. It truly is a scam.
Did you miss the memo about all the obstacles that oil companies, Republicans and car companies have put in the way?
Do you think maybe the playing field needs to be leveled a little bit? Did it ever occur to you that Congress needs to vigorously support alternative energy instead of being slaves to the oil and coal companies?
Just for once, I would like to see fewer stupid people.
So all of the responsibility is on others, huh? How about some personal responsibility? How about backing off the accelerator? Car pooling? Bike riding (weather permitting)? Turning the thermostat down?
I've made a conscious effort to not consume one more watt of energy than is needed. And not only have I saved a ton of money on gas and electric bills, but I sleep better knowing that my negative impact on this planet is much lower than it otherwise would be.
The best way to get more people to do this is to factor into the price of energy the total cost - including from any environmental degradation - of my consuming that energy. Higher energy costs = lower energy usage. Carbon taxes are an excellent way of getting people to do the right thing.
I think your information needs a little updating, unless you are communicating with us in your private time machine in 1980. Its more like 40% effeciency in solar technology that is being touted now. Instead of spreading misinformation why not use "the Google" and look up some current info.....like this,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=46765
As far as a 100MPG car? Been there done that.
How about a 300MPG car? Just read this,
http://gas2.org/2008/03/12/apteras-26000-electric-car-and-300-mpg-hybrid-coming-soon/
Green yet? There are solutions so what is your excuse now?
It is truly shocking and quite unbelievable that there are some - though a dwindling minority - who actually still don't "believe" in the Global Climate Crisis. It kind of reminds me of a person who would say " I don't believe that the sun sets in the West." OK. I am listening, but show me that the sun does not set in the West. Until you can show us that it is a scam - talk about conspiracy theorists - virtually the entire world?!? - or show that not just one or two scientists but the entire science community WITH PEER REVIEWED PAPERS is all just wrong; until you can provide clear and cogent evidence to the contrary, I will follow the great scientists. Even if there was more of a "question" about it all, I would rather err on the side of playing it safe for the sake of future generations instead of rolling the dice as you seem to be okay with. I don't care if you want to risk for yourself but do you not for a moment think about the fact that you may be - I mean just maybe - might be wrong. If I am wrong, we have a greener, cleaner planet. If you are wrong, children will be looking at you with extreme confusion and contributed to the creating of a planet that cannot sustain humans.
"though a dwindling minority"
Actually, more and more people and scientists are waking up to the scam. Someday you will too. The tempatures have not increased over the 1998 high. In fact, the most recent year, 2008, saw a decline in tempatures.
"Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people
How is it possible that a guy in one of the most obscure places in the US has got the lowdown on a scam that has fooled nearly all the actual scientists on earth? I remember hearing years ago about a particularly potent strain of cannibis named 'Maui Wowie'. Perhaps you ought to put down that bong and catch up.
Same old talking point, same old rebuttal:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
Nice anecdote about the 2008 weather, I have a cool anecdote as well:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/01-3
Oh, by the way, the scientific method does not use opinion polls as a factor in its deliberations.
"Actually, more and more people and scientists are waking up to the scam."
Well then, Einstein, please explain how it is that the polar ice caps are melting away and all the glasiers on all the major mountains of the world are receding. Tell the people if Iceland that global warming is a scam and they will think you mad. Who exactly are these "people and scientists" you are so willing to bet the lives of all the future generations of the world on?
Count me on the side which favors erring on the side of caution.
Bull! nebraska just had the warmest winter we ever had! We have problems! Wake up!
There are obviously a lot of proponents as well as opponents to the man made global warming theory. The passage of treaties and laws to combat global warming can be very costly at best and totally ruinous to our economy at worst. Why hasn't the MSM promoted any open debate on the subject by knowledgable scientists from either side. Might be very interesting when the actual facts are debated in an unbiased atmosphere.
Because the joke would be up and the MSM would be shown for what it is, a bunch of ideological enablers.
Why haven't the 'knowledgable scientists' from the skeptical side spoken out and promoted an open debate with the scientists from the other side? Guess they're smart enough to know not to bring a knife( in this case, a butterknife, ooohhh!) to a gunfight.
You must have missed the debate....or you are just being disingenuous.
The old "let's keep debating over and over for years and years, muddying up the issue, confusing people into inaction" tactic.
Footdragging Republican.
They know well that every time the media brings on a pro/con matchup on climate change that they are giving credibility to the denialists. If the scientific consensus were reflected you would have 99 climate change scientists and one oil company shill on the other side.
Isn't the earth cooling?
Some weather is cooling. But ask the people in the SW and the SE experiencing the drought if their weather is cooling. And then ask the people in the NE and Midwest who don't experience the continued snowy winters like yesteryar if their weather is cooling. Look at the arctic and the antartic melting and see if their weather is cooling.
It's called climate change.
Yeah, that's why the arctic ice shelves are melting. Ice ALWAYS melts when things get cooler.
Those of us that are near 60 years were fooled once by scientists, not again. Lets have an honest debate with actual facts.
Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.
Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
"In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.
Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause:
manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect."
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Your talking points need updating:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222
You are not an adequate denial tr0ll, go get more training.
Several of us near 60 years know BS when we see it. Appearently, some of us still don't. mauibob, try finding a science article instead of an opinion piece to base your opinion on, and then maybe you to will know BS when you see it.
I'm nearly 60 years old too and don't feel like I was "fooled" before. What are you talking about?
As far as the cold events. You are rignt.....there will be fluctuations in temperature.....that was never in doubt. However, over the average there is a different story. Let me quote from a science article in the NY Times,
" the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.
The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900."
In our puny little lives it is hard to see the big picure.
The 2008 climatological report: partly cloudy. Or partly sunny — it depends on your point of view, which underscores why it can be so easy to misunderstand the mechanism of climate change. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on Tuesday released its weather analysis for the year and found that 2008 has been the coolest year since the turn of the century. Using data gathered from Britain's Hadley Centre, the University of East Anglia and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), the WMO reported that the average global temperature in 2008 was 57.74 degrees F (14.3 degrees C), cooler than the past several years.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1866862,00.html
I would like to see more public discussion by scientists on both sides of the issue rather than the grandstanding of a politician with with an agenda, who doesn't practice what he preaches. Science is supposed to be approached objectively. We don't need politicians on either side lecturing us on these issues.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
