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.
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
"And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points." "Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes." "The tipping point for life on the planet will occur when so many interdependent species are lost that ecosystems collapse."
OK, I got the "tipping point" point. Now if the author could just tell me when this "tipping point" will occur. It seems that with the confidence the author places in his research he could at least give a year +/- when this will occur. Folks have predictied all sorts of things from impending ice ages to flying cars. Can the author put his reputation on the line and give us a time other than "soon"?
Okay, why don't you try, "NOW".? Have you seen the flooding along the Mississippi? Have you been around for the forest fires in the West? The drought in the Southeast and West? The Tsunami in Indonesia? The famine in Africa? Or, do you just want to know when you will be inconvenienced.
If we all do everything we can at our economic level, Congress will have to follow. Do you have children? Grandchildren? Then, "NOW" is the answer. Look at his numbers for carbon emissions in the atmosphere.
I am not trying to push your buttons. We all need to act together.
Tsunamis are created by earthquakes, not global warming.
I am afraid the problem is much more complicated, as should be evident from the difficulties involved in resolving it encountered by not only scientist & engineers, but by policy makers, politicians, economists, etc., and the public. At its root the problem is human being’s need to consume, both to meet our basic biological needs but more significantly, to feed our greed, that uniquely defines human beings. Is it not this that has formed what we know as ‘civilization’? China and India are doing what the West has been doing for decades. As long as we cannot curb our consumption of goods and services, demand for energy will continue to rise, as it has since we discovered fire. How can we ask the vast number of people in the world who are deprived of basic needs that they should not aspire to a better life, because this would result in a net increase in the consumption of resources, not least of which is energy? And what politician will tell his/her effluent constituency that he/she will work hard to limit their consumption (of everything) when elected?
Yes, science may be able to find an escape from carbon-based fuel. But, we must not ignore the first principle: all human actions result is waste in one form or another, and nature’s capacity to assimilate it will be exceeded eventually! An unfortunate but unavoidable pessimistic view, but that is how we have arrived where are now.
So the argument is whether or not man has anything to do with global warming. Not whether global warming is occuring. Does it really matter? Honestly?
The issue should be what are we going to do about it. While we are all standing around arguing about a non-issue, global warming isn't taking a lunch break.
Of course it matters. The whole strategy of combatting it is based on it being caused by humans, spewing CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels.
A pointless argument. It's been proven. We generate huge amounts of carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere. This is causing warming. We have a mechanism to change this by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide we introduce into the atmosphere. It's REALLY not that complicated.
The climate is actually cooling. More CO2 may be a good thing. It will delay the coming of the next ice age.
Kind of twisted aren't you, mike53?
You suggest that CO2 is cooling the planet, while at the same time a warm planet will delay an ice age.
I wish there were articles like this everyday, front-page, until all the knuckleheads finally got it. What could be more pressing than loss of so much planetary life?
Oh, yeah--everything they told you in the first five minutes of today's broadcast, e.g., Imus, Matthew McConnaughey, the McCain campaign's hopes for a terror incident.
Also on the non-news networks this a.m.: Much talk about food prices soaring, but no tie-in to global warming--one of the more obvious links to make. And on CBS, a conservative yokel radio dj is brought in to REFUTE the fact that the economy is bad (still in the first 5 minutes of broadcast) b/c: "Many people will find OPPORTUNITIES in this economy." In other words, it is going to be a good thing to pay more for gas, bread, meat and milk. Well, yeah.... for the speculators, not for anyone eating it or producing it or even selling it at the local grocery store.
Wowee, the media treat us like dumb bunnies, and we go along with it.
Mr Hanson is totaly on the mark in his concerns. But we the people are like lemmings and will go over the cliff with the fossel fuel barons he speaks of in the near future. We as individuals, are so into ourselves that we cannot come together sufficiantely to overpower the smallest power controlling groups. Face it mankind. for that reason, we as a species are on our march to oblivian.
"But more warming is already "in the pipeline," delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean"
If this is true, then why isn't the ocean warming? Especially over the past five years, as global temperatures have stopped rising?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
You are in error.
The oceans are warming. That's why much of the coral is dying. And the global temperature hasn't stopped rising.
"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."
"the global temperature hasn't stopped rising"
Yes it has. There has been no rising for the past ten years.
As the increase in sea ice and shelf ice melt enters the oceans you should expect to see some decrease in temperatures. Like when you put ice into your glass of tea. But you knew that, didn't you?
Sea ice is in balance with ocean temperature, because it is already in the ocean.
And the balance of ice shelves are on the rise. Yes there is melting in Greenland and West Antarctica, but Eastern Antarctica is thickening at such a rate, that there is a net increase.
That's definitely a good article to read but I think you might have missed the point to it, TimmySlagle. They clearly point out in the article that even though these diving robots have reported no rise in sea temp over the past several years, there has still been an unusually high level of sea level rising suggesting warming is indeed happening and they can't figure out exactly where. The fact that so much ice has melted and continues to do so should give us pause. Plus, the issue of the ocean becoming more acidic should be a more immediate concern for us. The things that result from a more acidic ocean are truly horrible--noxious atmosphere with acid rain so strong we would not be able to breathe our air.
Either way, even with the planet's surprisingly enormous capacity for self-correction, shouldn't we want to live in a cleaner world? Shouldn't we want greater innovation instead of stubbornly adhering to technology of the past?
I did not miss the editorializing that NPR did in the article.
But one fact remains: there has been no rise in ocean temperatures over the past five years.
And if you look at the Median Sea Level on this graph, you will notice it has been dropping for the past two or three years. (Not rising).
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg
No wonder you dont ever seem to catch onto a conversation. He stated that the ocean is one of the last things keeping GW in check ( as a carbon sink and global cooler) and once that happens, the tipping point will be reached. Your grasp of the subject and your ability to comprehend what you read are borderline.
As Hansen said, you can pick apart many of the studies, but put them all together and you have 99% certainty of climate change and our input into it.
If the ocean is really cooling the earth, then it should be getting warmer.
That's basic thermodynamics.
Wasn't it just months ago that the data seemingly changed overnight?
What originally was thought would occur many years down the road...the complete loss of Artic Ice is now thought to occur sometime in August.
Just two weeks ago, temps in suburban Philly were up to 97 degrees.
Pretty darn hot for this early in the summer!
High oil prices couldn't have come at a better time, then.
Hold oil companies liable for misreprentation? What about holding their employee President Bush responsible for editing global warming from every EPA report for the last seven years? Perhaps impeachment is appropriate on this issue alone. And as this issue goes back twenty years - then Democrats share in responsibility. This was a known issue when the "Eco-pope" Al Gore was a V.P. and it was a known issue when Pelosi and Reid gained control over congress.
On John McCain's website he sell merchandise. One of the ways he sells it is by "interest groups": Arab Americans for McCain, Dads for McCain, Golfers for McCain, Marines..., etc... One of these groups is "Green for McCain" and on that sub-site only the merchandise is organic and natural, etc.. etc.. The price for these t-shirts and hats etc.. is the same! Of course if John McCain really was an environmentalist, then all of the goods would meet these standards no matter which site they sell on.
This displays the problem. Global warming is still regarded by politicians as a "boutique" issue, a concern of some voters and the feeling is those voters can be appeased with some bones tossed their way. War is not a boutique issue - we are all involved in it and we all have a stake. We need no less than a "war on carbon".
This must become standard policy - not $300 million one time bounties but baked-in sustainable incentives and penalties.
Yeah, and Hanson's gang thought that we were due for another ice age only 30 years ago (See cover - Time Magazine 1974). Folks, we have a LOT bigger worries than if the earth has increased by 7/8 of a degree over the past 100 years. These "PhDs" are getting paid by the govt to come up with this nonsense. For EVERY peice of "scientific" evidence in favor of global warming, there are 3 peices against it. Lets not get side-tracked by this side show while the environmentalists & Washington continue to cripple our country.
Quantity != Quality.
Big Oil has the big money to spread the disinformation.
Dr Hansen has some company
http://tinyurl.com/2udet9
http://tinyurl.com/24ym5b
It has to be great to have a secure government job and not have to worry about economic problems. If we follow Hansen's advice, we will lose many jobs to China, the world's largest carbon dioxide emitter who Hansen (and pal Gore) don't believe should have to control their emissions. But since China's industries are not energy-efficient and are more dependent upon that old devil coal, Hansens's approach would actually result in an increase in carbon dioxide emissions as well as economic dislocation in the U.S.
One of the largest reasons India and China haven't addressed global warming in any serious way, is the same argument from their perspective. Why should we, when the U.S. is doing nothing about global warming?
Very sophisticated argument there, buddy.
"Stop it!"
"No, you stop it!"
"Stop it!!"
"No, you stop it"
"I said it first!"
"No you didn't! I did"
"Yes I did. Stop it!"
"MOM!"
"MOM!"
"He won't stop releasing global warming gases into the atmosphere and trying to kill us all!"
"Well, neither will she!"
(Unfortunately, there mother was dead, so they kept doing it until everyone was dead.)
Good job.
The Kyoto treaty, rejected by the democratic Senate, required punitive reductions by the United States and selected other countries and no restrictions whatsoever on countries like India and China. The obvious solution, reductions from all major emitting sources, was rejected by India and China. Now China is the largest emitter with plans to greatly increase coal use (and emissions). So one has to ask if Hansen's approach is designed to address the problem that he claims exists or just punish the United States economy. Before answering, note the recent news that Al Gore has actually increased his already enormous household energy consumption by 10% over last year.
You've sullied your argument with your first line. There were important points you've buried that could be discussed intelligently. Government employees have demands and responsibilities. If I didn't I wouldn't have to leave so quickly..
I agree that there are both important scientific questions to be resolved as well as complex policy issues to be addressed. Hansen (and Gore as well) start out saying that people who disagree with them should be brought up on criminal charges which is no way to start a serious debate. It would also be useful for the "true believers" to be upfront about what their solutions would require with regard to lifestyle changes. The folks a few comments down who think using the Hybrid a bit more than the SUV and turning down the air conditioning in the house by 2 degrees is their share of the solution are going to be more than a bit surprised.
Somehow, this poem seems quaint now:
There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;
And frogs in the pool singing at night,
And wild plum trees in tremulous white;
Robins will wear their feathery fire,
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;
And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.
Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
If mankind perished utterly;
And Spring herself when she woke at dawn
Would scarcely know that we were gone.
She'll damn straight know we're gone if we take the planet with us!
Thank you, Dr. Hansen! You are a true planetary hero!
James Hansen's speech to Congress re global warming June 23, 2008:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
See also articles at
http://www.skirsch.com
------------
He's right that awareness of the health of the planet's, OUR, ecosystem has been around since the early 70s, but once the "Reagan Revolution" happened, greed and short-sigtedness ruled and have ruled, even through the Clinton Years. Sad. But if everyone will become an activist now, we can all be planetary heroes.
And McCain wants to do more offshore drilling!
Hmm... just a prediction. Its already too late. Had we started taking this seriously back during the oil crisis of the 70's, by now we'd be carbon neutral. But it is too late. The author points out how close we are to the no turning back point. However, with politics involved, I don't see how we can make any major changes in time. Global warming is here, and will stay here. Not because of the science, but because our system of democracy is simply incapable of dealing with these kinds of complex issues. No matter how much real science is shown, it is being shown to people who are clueless about science. You don't have to be a climatologist to understand global warming, but you do have to understand science and its methods. Our body of politicians can't even accurately describe Occam's Razor.
"Its already too late." ???
Even if it is, I am for doing what we can, rather than throwing up our hands and saying, oh well, nothing can be done.
"A national low-loss electric grid is an imperative."
THIS MUST HAPPEN! SOON.
Dr. Hansen, when you go on tirades about prosecuting oil executives, you lose credibility.
When you attack coal fired power plants, and refuse to mention nuclear power as the only viable alternative, you lose credibility.
"The fossil-industry maintains its stranglehold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction."
It's funny, but you could say the exact same thing about people like you who obstruct nuclear power via demagoguery, using waste storage as a scapegoat. If we're really facing cataclysmic destruction in the next century, who cares whether or not our nuclear waste storage facilities are geologically stable for a million years?
By wilfully ignoring the most pragmatic and most palatable and therefore the most viable solutions going forward, you expose yourself for the ideologue you are.
What a load of bollocks.....
I care about nuclear waste!
Mr Hansen is absolutely correct...there are people at the NSC, whos' only job is to maintain the energy status quo. This is the legacy of Allen and John Foster Dulles, who were subservient to the Rockefellers.
Coal plants are extremely inefficient, nuclear power is subsidized, unstable and produces very harmful waste.
While it is true that both the Sun and indeed the Suns' position relative to the galactic plane are an influence on this our Solar System, it has been very well demonstrated that our moronic use of hydrocarbons is helping things along quite a bit.
There are much better ways to generate/extract energy but every time someone tries to commercialise it, the big federal dog - like some sort of goon squad for the Oil cartels - somehow manages to kill and ridicule it. SOmetimes we don't hear about it at all.
Don't you understand? Your goverment is RIDDLED with Beltway Bandits and moles, and it's been this way since the days of Nikola Tesla.
"There are much better ways to generate/extract energy but every time someone tries to commercialise it, the big federal dog - like some sort of goon squad for the Oil cartels - somehow manages to kill and ridicule it."
Typical rant of from the conspiracy-theorist fringe. I suppose you believe in the "100-miles per-gallon" carburator that the oil cartels supposedly have locked-away in the basement.
I like gow we are increasing carbon dioxide by 2 ppm per year. Is that man made or not? Carbon dioxide is a normal gas on earth that was hear long before man showed up and will always be here. The hysteria is not based on sound scientific study but speculation. The fact that so much focus is on the US "per capita" carbon output rather than the obvious abusers of China and India smacks of a biased against us. The amount of unregulated pollutants outside the US needs to be addressed...not a constant attack on oil companies. Oil made this country great and our companies are responsible when it comes to drilling and research. The "green" people of this country will cause ouir economy to collapse with extreme taxes based on "carbon footprints" as punishment. In 20 years we will all look back and laugh how the climate didn't change at all and those who supported this garbage will be as embarrassed as those who were disco dancers of the 70's.
Really? Except for the droughts, floods, crop failures, fires, and desertification happening right now, I guess you could come to that conclusion. Just keep watching Fox News, and driving your SUV, flat earher, denial is the American Way.
You trolls and your talking points.
A big green push would bring jobs back to our shores.
Anything but make companies step up and take responsibility for their actions.
Bushes insane policies have lost us more jobs than enforcing carbon ouput caps will ever.
ANd once again blame the green people.
You people are so selfish and childish.
Just because you don't read or understand the sound scientific study, hardly means it isn't being done. Oh, what genius to point out that CO2 is a normal gas and has always been here. You didn't bother mentioning that the majority of the carbon has been locked up in coal and oil sitting nicely below the earth's surface and when you dig it up and burn it, it releases it into the air creating a natural imbalance. The earth cycles these things in the appropriate proportions and we've disturbed that cycle. We have the minds and the means to correct this so why not do so?
And I hope you're right that in 20 years we'll look back and say, "Glad that didn't happen." There will always be people like you who will claim it was never a threat when in reality we will be able to reverse course in time to prevent it.
I just don't understand you people who would rather stand by an outdated, outmoded technology instead of moving into the future and into greater efficiency and into cities without smog--or do you believe that smog has always existed too and we don't need to do anything about that either?
MourningDude - You just exposed yourself for the ideologue you are...
Hansen proposes bringing criminal charges against people who dispute AGW. I thought this was 2008. It seems more like 1633.
Oh, stop the persecution complex!
What's amazing to me is that the self-serving industries that are blocking any meaningful solutions to the global warming problem have managed to get toadies in the general public to fight their fight for them.
Yes especially with "Torquemada's successors" running the country (the quote is from RFK Jr not me) .. you know "the inquisition what a show" (mel brooks not me) ... In other words notepad2 --- it is the theocratic fascist state (fascism being defined as the intertwining of corporate and state interests) ... science now becomes ideology in Bush science so you have idiotic nonsense like abstinence ... you have absurdities like intelligent design as a debate (there is no debate in the scientific community) and of course global climate change ... again no debate in the scientific community ...
Things could have been done long ago but instead the uber capitalist war barons played a hegemonic game kind of Orwellian don't you think? In which war is peace and the bomb is Mother Teresa ... so yes charges should be brought against them because when something could have been done it was not done ... and they have lied and lied and lied and bought out complicit characters to advance their ideological agendas
Science ought not be ideologically driven ... but Bush did that and now we dare impugn Dr Hansen who is doing the science and the research and is not funded by right wing foundation or corporate capital ...
NO they ought to be brought on charges as much as Bush should be and Cheney should be ... and what makes it worse is the idiocracy that has developed ...
Where does Dr. Hansen attack nuclear energy? If coal and gas plants are taxed and capped as he proposes, nuclear will win the competition game.
Do your research on why nuclear isn't in the competition. It is all about tree hugging.
Nuclear power plants are VERY expensive and take a long time to build.
AND they produce radioactive waste that can NEVER be disposed of. Thus, nuclear is not clean.
NO NUKES!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
