Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near on Global Warming

Today I testified to Congress about global warming, 20 years after my June 23, 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.

Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.

The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next president and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation.

Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.

Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals.

I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year.

On June 23, 1988 I testified to a hearing, organized by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible. I noted that global warming enhanced both extremes of the water cycle, meaning stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods.

My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism. But while skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public. As scientists examine a topic from all perspectives, it may appear that nothing is known with confidence. But from such broad open-minded study of all data, valid conclusions can be drawn.

My conclusions in 1988 were built on a wide range of inputs from basic physics, planetary studies, observations of on-going changes, and climate models. The evidence was strong enough that I could say it was time to "stop waffling." I was sure that time would bring the scientific community to a similar consensus, as it has.

While international recognition of global warming was swift, actions have faltered. The U.S. refused to place limits on its emissions, and developing countries such as China and India rapidly increased their emissions.

What is at stake? Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land areas, seems almost innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather fluctuations. But more warming is already "in the pipeline," delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a "perfect storm," a global cataclysm, are assembled.

Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.

More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well under way, it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely within a century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees, and no stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.

Animal and plant species are already being stressed by climate change. Species can migrate in response to movement of their climatic zone, but some species in polar and alpine regions will be pushed off the planet. As climate zones move farther and faster, climate change will become the primary cause of species extinction. The tipping point for life on the planet will occur when so many interdependent species are lost that ecosystems collapse.

The shocking conclusion, documented in a paper2 I have written with several of the world's leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million), and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Shocking corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.

These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today's carbon dioxide amount. The consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond extermination of species and future sea level rise.

Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward. Already an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.

Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people. These glaciers are receding world-wide, in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains. They will disappear, leaving their rivers as trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon dioxide is reversed.

Coral reefs, the rainforest of the ocean, are home to one-third of the species in the sea. Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide. Ocean life dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid.

Such phenomena, including the instability of Arctic sea ice and the great ice sheets at today's carbon dioxide amount, show that we have already gone too far. We must draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide to preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is still feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural practices, but just barely -- time is running out.

The steps needed to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs. Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.

Oil is used in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices are rising. We must move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.

Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. If their campaigns continue and "succeed" in confusing the public, I anticipate testifying against relevant CEOs in future public trials.

Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species would leave a more desolate planet.

If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no solution. They provide continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted self-serving industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy solution.

Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging, yet transformative in ways that will be welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil fuels engendered bad habits. We import food from halfway around the world, for example, even with healthier products available from nearby fields. Local produce would be competitive if not for fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that climate change damages and costs, due to fossil fuels, are also borne by the public.

A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax. Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is needed to wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.

Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual's bank account.

Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On the contrary, you can bet that low and middle income people will find ways to limit their carbon tax and come out ahead. Profligate energy users will have to pay for their excesses.

Demand for low-carbon high-efficiency products will spur innovation, making our products more competitive on international markets. Carbon emissions will plummet as energy efficiency and renewable energies grow rapidly. Black soot, mercury and other fossil fuel emissions will decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is possible.

Washington likes to spend our tax money line-by-line. Swarms of high-priced lobbyists in alligator shoes help Congress decide where to spend, and in turn the lobbyists' clients provide "campaign" money.

The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet, creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: "One hundred percent dividend or fight! No more alligator shoes!"

The next president must make a national low-loss electric grid an imperative. It will allow dispersed renewable energies to supplant fossil fuels for power generation. Technology exists for direct-current high-voltage buried transmission lines. Trunk lines can be completed in less than a decade and expanded analogous to interstate highways.

Government must also change utility regulations so that profits do not depend on selling ever more energy, but instead increase with efficiency. Building code and vehicle efficiency requirements must be improved and put on a path toward carbon neutrality.

The fossil-industry maintains its stranglehold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

We must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own tax and dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If necessary, import duties on products from uncooperative countries can level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.

Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great expectations.

Comments

[NL207]

"Ocean life dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid."

Dr. Hansen, this topic is well outside your personal sphere of expertise. Upon what basis is this statement made? Other, actual experts in this field are far less certain than you, describing the effect as "largely unknown":
"Although the changes in ocean acidity can be pre-dicted with great certainty, the consequences for marineorganisms, their ecosystems and climate-relevant organicgas emissions are largely unknown"
source: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:5T6U-Kp84VkJ:infohost.nmt.edu/~chem/wingenter/Wingenter_PeECE_III_GRL_2007.pdf+ocean+ph+paleohistory&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

[PlanetThoughts]

What you and many others do not realize is that you are admitting we are conducting an uncontrolled experiment on the world that is keeping us alive and at least sometimes, healthy.

Think carefully: if you knew that there was a 50% chance that you and your family would become homeless beggars due to a certain course of action, wouldn't you change that course of action? What if the best scientific minds took decades of data and said there is over a 90% chance that we are causing permanent (within any time span that matters to us) damage to the planet? Would you make an effort to lower carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions? Would you encourage electric cars, and even better communities that support walking, bicycles, and mass transit? Would you not join with neighbors and your country to change policies? Maybe not - because of deep, unconscious attachment to material, unlimited "growth" which is without realizing it, a self-destructive addiction. We need to break that addiction and move forward to a safer world!

[thedirtman]

"Dr. Hansen, this topic is well outside your personal sphere of expertise."

Did I miss something here? Acid-base reactions are a subject of first semester chemistry. Acids will work to destroy carbonate and CO2 is liberated into the atmosphere upon reaction. I don't see how it is a mystery that carbonate shells are threatened as oceans become more acidic. Any junior scientist can drop one drop of acid on carbonate shells or any carbonate rock and see the liberation of carbon dioxide in bubbles. Enlighten me on how carbonate shells could possibly be protected from acid in the ocean.

[WASanford]

It"s easy to be distracted by arguments over the science or by personal attacks such as those made by a commenter here asking Dr. Hanson when he stopped warning about global cooling. The overriding fact however is this; we all live on the same planet and up to now, we have nowhere else to go. We"ve had astronauts on the moon but a catastrophic end of the earth would have killed them also. No one here is trying to save the planet. The planet has existed for a little more than 4 billion years and we"ve only been on it for a at most a few million. No, this is about saving humanity or at the very least lessening the risk we face as a species.

To give you some idea of the danger we face look at what happened just two hundred and fifty million years ago at the end of the Permian Age. This global warming event very nearly wiped out all life on this planet. Only small bivalves that lived in the mud at the bottom of rivers and a strange looking reptile named Lystrosaurus managed to survive, mainly because they were able to live in a low oxygen atmosphere. Global warming has proven to be very dangerous to life.

How ironic it would be if the most intelligent species on this planet allowed itself to become extinct because it lacked the wisdom to change its ways.

Thank you Dr. Hansen for your service to humanity.

[PlanetThoughts]

Agreed, WASanford. Regarding the so-called predictions of global cooling, those were some speculative articles about 30 years ago that said we could have a problem IF there were large amounts of particulates placed into the atmosphere.

It was nothing like the current discussion, which is based on the actual goings on. There are detailed discussions of all the distortions used by climate change deniers. The fact is that Dr. Hansen, and many others with less visibility in the United States, have been soberly and carefully examining a multitude of facts relating to climate history and current trends. They are quite intelligent, and the danger is a serious one.

It is, however, unpolitic to deal with such a reality, as it changes many relationships and the usual way of doing business and government. However, we must deal with it.

[lfotweaker]

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change...

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N27/EDIT.php

A critique of these recent rantings...

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansen.php

[Dirck]

Hansen made some very clear predictions back in 1988. Specifically, he provided a graph in his prepared remarks predicting what global mean temperature would do through 2019.

Why doesn't someone compare that graph to what has actually happened through 2008 (based on data provided by his own GISS).

The results may surprise you:

http://www.dirckthenoorman.com/?p=948

[mach]

More proof that our liberties are being taken away from us from the far left environmentalists:

No more drive thu's:

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/293046

[DavidJames]

The wikipedia.org under global warming has a good discussion of Global Warming with excellent references. It shows quite clearly that the we are experiencing an accelerating warming trend that started in the early 1900s.

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

The driver for this problem has been found to be atmospheric carbon dioxide. The wikipedia.org has an excellent discussion of this under atmospheric carbon dioxide. It provides evidence that for 800,000 years Earth has between 180 ppm and 300 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the last 200 years carbon dioxide has increased to 380 ppm and is forecast to go to over 500 to 900 ppm by 2100!

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

The effect of greenhouse gas effect was discovered in 1824 and is well understood. The greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide is well understood. The extra carbon dioxide will trap additional heat in the atmosphere and the earth will warm up.

[DavidWojick]

It has only warmed for one 20 year period in the last 70 years, despite continuous CO2 rise (1978-98). This falsifies the CO2-warming theory.
David Wojick http://www.climatechangedebate.org

[DavidJames]

Nonsense. The wikipedia graph of global mean temperatures from 1850 to present shows a definite accelerating temperature trend starting from at least 1910. That is nearly 100 years!

There are lots of year to year variations, both up and down, that exceed the average yearly increase. That doesn't disprove anything. There is still, on the average, a year to year increase, that is obvious to everyone.

Note the apparent increased rate of change of temperatures starting in 1960.

[PlanetThoughts]

Yes, David. For those deniers who might be interested in hearing information, just think of this: the mechanism used to heat up a greenhouse is heat-trapping glass. It is simple to demonstrate that carbon dioxide acts in the same way, in the planetary atmosphere.

If you understand those facts, why is it a surprise that our carbon dioxide density is now warming the planet. It is not a surprise - but it is the conclusions that many of us, understandably but unacceptably, do not want to face. It is not unacceptable because we are in an "argument", but because the earth's environment needs our urgent action.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Global warming is an interplanetary phenomenon. The southern ice caps on Mars are melting much as the northern caps are somewhat melting on earth-the ice caps are actually advancing in the south. Can anyone guess the reason why? It's the sun stupid.

[thedirtman]

If the sun were taken as an single explanation it would require a magic bullet. Solar flux activity hasn't matched the strength of the warming required to melt ice caps. We've seen greater solar activity in the period from 1900 to 1940. The global warming from 1960 to present mathematically correlates more closely to the mathematical buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, especially after 1980. We know the effects of greenhouse gases in laboratory experiment in a controlled environment. The effects are closely predicted by the shape of the greenhouse gas molecule (first predicted in theory and verified with the electron microscope). If greenhouse gases behave differently in a natural environment then an explanation has never presented itself. Further, the effects of the two components (sun and carbon dioxide) are reinforcing and compounding. Warming from the sun increases volatility of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, water and methane. A second greenhouse gas, water, precipitates at lower concentrations when the atmosphere is cooler. More carbon dioxide causes more atmospheric water leading to more heating. Then the planet's albedo changes when ice is melted causing yet another regenerative feedback. In short, the sun is not an alternate explanation. The sun is just another variable to confound and compound the problem of global warming. We must break the cycle between the sun, water, and carbon dioxide to prevent runaway global warming. The single variable we can control is anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.

[AninditaDey]

I would like to add one more dimention here. In spite of debate over the effect of climate change, there is no denying fact that natural disasters are becoming more intensifying day by day. Disasters, be it earthquakes, floods, mudslides, wildfires, windstorms or Tsunami have now increasing been seen as a threat to achieve Millennium Development Goals despite best efforts. Hence, besides walking with a low carbon footprint, sensitizing and ensuring community participation towards disaster management is utmost important. My own group Online Universal is striving to sensitize and engage community towards disaster management. Through HUFFINGTON Post I urge one and all to spread this message.

[AninditaDey]

Whether it should be ascribed to the climate change or not, may be the point of debate but there is no denying fact that natural disasters are becoming more intensifying day by day. Disasters, be it earthquakes, floods, mudslides, wildfires, windstorms or Tsunami have now increasing been seen as a threat to achieve Millennium Development Goals despite best efforts. Hence, encouraging community participation towards disaster management is utmost important. That"s why, my own group Online Universal is striving to sensitize and engage community towards disaster management.

[CEKChuck]

Hmmmm, that didn't include the url, let's try that again. A good Q&A with Dr. Hansen on Global Warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auTEWanRTfM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=auTEWanRTfM

[newworldman777]

We must all face the reality that the only hope that we have to save the environment is to implement draconian changes in the way that we live. I say that with the thought of your children in mind. All of you who have children should be more than willing to make those changes. Get off of this "it's all about me" attitude (your typical American attitude), if you actually care about your chldren and want to leave them a semi-habitable world. We are obviously woefully unprepared to make those changes as quickly as they are needed; therefore, we will surely face diminished lifestyles -- we will "suffer," if you will -- in the process of making those changes.

We can thank our "leadership" -- or lack thereof -- who have been in power for the past 30 years. They dropped the ball with the development of alternative energy research. They idiotically placed all of their faith in the Middle Eastern countries to continue to feed our addiction with cheap oil, even though those people hate us with a passion, for a myriad of reasons.

I personally couldn't care less what happens. I have chosen to not have children, since I would not want them to suffer in the future because of my generation's selfishness. Unfortunately, people didn't adopt the 7-generation rule of my people, the Native Americans. They strove to leave the land in the same shape that they left it, for the enjoyment of the 7th generation down

[WASanford]

I disagree with you about the word "draconian." How awful would it be to drive up to your house that"s off the grid in your car that"s powered by hydrogen you made from sunshine? Does that sound fantastic to you? Then check this out. Remember that Mike is a pioneer who"s using off the shelf technology and a manufactured and widely distributed system would be less expensive.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-house&sc=WR_20080624

What the "fossil" companies want is to keep us over an oil barrel. Let"s turn these companies into fossils.

[Tator]

My question to Mr. Hansen.......What made you change your mind when you were warning everyone about Global COOLING?

[thedirtman]

Great question. Read the popular book author Mark Bowen wrote about it. It makes a big difference when you can work for yourself instead of working for others.

Theories of global cooling start from the late 1950's and continue into the early 1970's. Studies in the Milankovitch Effect (which allows some pre-historic prediction of ice ages on account of variations in the Earth's orbit and orbital inclination) put forth a theory that Earth would probably resume ice age conditions over the next few hundred years or so. Obviously, with anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, this will never happen now - otherwise global cooling might still be a distant threat. Perhaps, this might be the only benefit of global warming...

[speakyourmind]

Hmmm....let's see. Scientists who study this for a living, or politicians who get donations paid by corporate interests.....hmmmmm.....call me strange, but I think I'll listen to science.

[KenFL]

I've heard almost this exact same sentence on Bill Mahr and other political comedy shows. It's a nice bumper sticker, but has no meaning.

Evaluating a scientific theory by trying to guess the motivations and biases of the proponents and opponents is pretty useless. Every player can be portrayed as somehow compromised. That's why real science isn't done that way.

How, exactly does one "listen to science"? I've read hundreds of articles on the subject over the years, and the striking change recently is the incredible politicization of what was once a scientific discussion.

The fact that GW proponents have to rely on WHO believes their theory in order to "prove" it, should lead thinking people to be skeptical.

An honest assesment and admission by GW proponents of the limitations of our understanding of nature would go a long way towards convincing skeptics that a scientific process of learning is underway, rather than merely a political process.

[blueshield]

HuffPost's Pick

Yeah, amazing, ain't it? Imagine if the same interests started saying cancer was a hoax, or obesity, or diabetes, or STD's. You'd have people posting here about the "medical fascists" trying to scare people into treatments, or "commie" nutrition.

If there is one lasting crime BushCo and his ilk have done to the US, it is creating the notion that anyone can evaluate scientific research and draw conclusions - without credentials, peer-review, or regard for the positions of the world's leading scientific bodies. Amazing. Scary.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Not quite.

To split a fat hair, the big crime isn't that BushCo has unduly encouraged lay people to pass judgement on science, it's that they've polticized the actual science itself!

I would suggest that the BushCo WAR ON SCIENCE is the bigger problem than the rejection on faith of good science.

Luckily, there are a few Dr. Hansen's out there. Oh that there were more.

[mh01]

Scientists get money from interested parties as well, corporate interests, government interests, special interests, you name it.

They are not all above influence.

[ScottPalmer]

In the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, there is a chart from ice core data showing CO2 vs temperature for 650,000 years. It shows that the CO2 level is well above where the earth has been over the last 650,000 years. The chart shows ice ages and warming periods. I have yet to see a peer reviewed article that is in conflict with the data. CO2 levels are projected to go much higher. CO2 is a long lived gas and will remain in the atmosphere for 100 years. It traps the long wave radiation from the earth like glass does in a greenhouse.

If we think of CO2 as a greenhouse gas heating the earth, then a reasonable analogy is turning on a gas burner under a pot of water. The burning gas heats the air quickly, but it takes a while for the water to get hot. We have turned on the heat with CO2 and are continuing to turn up the burner. It will be on for a long time. It takes a long time to heat the land and water of the earth and temperature rise is now locked in. It will rise until it reaches thermal equilibrium. There is nothing crackpot or hysterical about what I have written. It is basic science.

Oh, by the way, we are all in the pot together.

[elbzee]

HOW TO BOIL A LIVE FROG:
We're the frog paddling
left in water to frolic
Warm, it is, and comfy.
Warmer yet, we daydream.
Warmer and warmer, we have to drowse.
Getting hot, we start to worry
Hotter yet, it really hurts now!
Boiling it is, cooking us all.
ribit

[mh01]

My aching bones could use a nice hot tub!

[StinkyPete]

Here are some more pictures of CO2 levels - Warning - Geologists!

http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

Just for fun a Geophysicist - Astronautical Engineer - Astronaut

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

[julianne]

Thank you bravery and common sense Mr. Hansen. I didn't finish college, but you don't have to be an academic to note the alarming cancer trends since the inception of carcinogenic oil by-products into every facet of our material economy and environment, particularly agriculture. And whether the rapid, dangerous warming occurring THAT IS melting the ice in the Artic and elsewhere comes from sun spots, fossil fuels, or my wife's purse makes no difference. Direction and priorities are everything for a citizen or a nation and that the U.S. has no long term energy and conservation plan with an energy agency on the level of NASA, a plan to renovate the electric grids regionally and nationally to accept a multiplicity of energy forms folded into a massive 30 year infrastructure plan - IS A CRIME. Those who pay to corrupt and censor our scientific and engineering research or corrupt such research in an attempt to deflect us from what is necessary for the security of our posterity are all criminals.

[mach]

Thats right, they are criminals...lock them up...dissent is not allowed...theres no room for differing opinions..shut them up...youre a freakin communist.

[blueshield]

Actually, mach, communists coming to power ALWAYS first lock up and kill the scientists - the "intellectual elite" as you and your friends call them. Can't cow and control the masses if you have thinkers running around waving facts.

[speakyourmind]

And the world is flat too, Mach.

[TexasDem0]

mach, dissent is not allowed? You must be thinking of BushCo.
Scientists welcome dissent, debate and discussion, just as the founding fathers of our country did. That"s how we get to the best answer.

[David57]

Mach - there is always dissent in science - among scientists. Scientists don't have opinions - they have data. Corporate executives with scientific staff who depend on that paycheck to buy the $4.95/gal. gasoline and send their kids to college - are not scientists. Personally I do believe some are criminals - or haven't you been reading the news lately?

[Hoelder]

When I had biology and geography in high school (5th grade, 1970, Germany), we knew already. CO2 was at 319 parts per million. Now it is 382. It took Germany 25 years to come up with 22% of power being generated by alternative power generation. In the States there are still numb nuts like the Senator from Oklahoma who claim that the "American People" don't buy it. Today, the mercury in Rome hit a record 104 degrees F. As far as I know history, we will not make the changes necessary to survive as humans. Our biological temperature tolerance is rather slim. It is because of people like the senator of Oklahoma that change will not happen. This is a matter of science and intelligence. Obviously exactly what the senator lacks with his believe in Intelligent Design. People the change will happen. The question remains of how many of our children will make it or not. We have used the atmosphere and the oceans as dump sites for our luxuries. We are breathing our own shit. Like fish in an aquarium without filters and then they die. It will not be like trying to get fresh air. We will kill each other for resources like water and food. The law and order we are so proud of will make space for little totalitarianism to fight for those resources, guide by a "leader". If you do not want this, step on your legislators' toes and demand that they do there job.

[mach]

CO2 is up to 283 PPM????? better stop exhaling.