All signs suggest that the planet is still hurtling headlong toward climatic disaster. The United States' National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has issued its "State of the Climate Report" covering January-May. The first five months of this year were the warmest on record going back to 1880. May was the warmest month ever. Intense heat waves are currently hitting many parts of the world. Yet still we fail to act.
There are several reasons for this, and we should understand them in order to break today's deadlock. First, the economic challenge of controlling human-induced climate change is truly complex. Human-induced climate change stems from two principal sources of emissions of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide): fossil-fuel use for energy and agriculture (including deforestation to create new farmland and pastureland).
Changing the world's energy and agricultural systems is no small matter. It is not enough to just wave our hands and declare that climate change is an emergency. We need a practical strategy for overhauling two economic sectors that stand at the center of the global economy and involve the entire world's population.
The second major challenge in addressing climate change is the complexity of the science itself. Today's understanding of Earth's climate and the human-induced component of climate change is the result of extremely difficult scientific work involving many thousands of scientists in all parts of the world. This scientific understanding is incomplete, and there remain significant uncertainties about the precise magnitudes, timing and dangers of climate change.
The general public naturally has a hard time grappling with this complexity and uncertainty, especially since the changes in climate are occurring over a timetable of decades and centuries, rather than months and years. Moreover, year-to-year and even decade-to-decade natural variations in climate are intermixed with human-induced climate change, making it even more difficult to target damaging behavior.
This has given rise to a third problem in addressing climate change, which stems from a combination of the economic implications of the issue and the uncertainty that surrounds it. This is reflected in the brutal, destructive campaign against climate science by powerful vested interests and ideologues, apparently aimed at creating an atmosphere of ignorance and confusion.
The Wall Street Journal, for example, America's leading business newspaper, has run an aggressive editorial campaign against climate science for decades. The individuals involved in this campaign are not only scientifically uninformed, but show absolutely no interest in becoming better informed. They have turned down repeated offers by climate scientists to meet and conduct serious discussions about the issues.
Major oil companies and other big corporate interests also are playing this game, and have financed disreputable public-relations campaigns against climate science. Their general approach is to exaggerate the uncertainties of climate science and to leave the impression that climate scientists are engaged in some kind of conspiracy to frighten the public. It is an absurd charge, but absurd charges can curry public support if presented in a slick, well-funded format.
If we add up these three factors -- the enormous economic challenge of reducing greenhouse gases, the complexity of climate science, and deliberate campaigns to confuse the public and discredit the science -- we arrive at the fourth and overarching problem: U.S. politicians' unwillingness or inability to formulate a sensible climate-change policy.
The U.S. bears disproportionate responsibility for inaction on climate change, because it was long the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, until last year, when China overtook it. Even today, per capita U.S. emissions are more than four times higher than China's. Yet, despite America's central role in global emissions, the U.S. Senate has done nothing about climate change since ratifying the United Nations climate-change treaty 16 years ago.
When Barack Obama was elected U.S. president, there was hope for progress. Yet, while it is clear that Obama would like to move forward on the issue, so far he has pursued a failed strategy of negotiating with senators and key industries to try to forge an agreement. Yet the special-interest groups have dominated the process, and Obama has failed to make any headway.
The Obama administration should have tried -- and should still try -- an alternative approach. Instead of negotiating with vested interests in the backrooms of the White House and Congress, Obama should present a coherent plan to the American people. He should propose a sound strategy over the next 20 years for reducing America's dependence on fossil fuels, converting to electric vehicles, and expanding non-carbon energy sources such as solar and wind power. He could then present an estimated price tag for phasing in these changes over time, and demonstrate that the costs would be modest compared with the enormous benefits.
Strangely, despite being a candidate of change, Obama has not taken the approach of presenting real plans of action for change. His administration is trapped more and more in the paralyzing grip of special-interest groups. Whether this is an intended outcome, so that Obama and his party can continue to mobilize large campaign contributions, or the result of poor decision-making is difficult to determine -- and may reflect a bit of both.
What is clear is that we are courting disaster as a result. Nature doesn't care about our political machinations. And nature is telling us that our current economic model is dangerous and self-defeating. Unless we find some real global leadership in the next few years, we will learn that lesson in the hardest ways possible.
This article first appeared in Project Syndicate.
For more information on climate change please check The State of the Planet blog.
Follow Jeffrey Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeffdsachs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg"
So I watched it; it's worth watching.
Carlin has a point when he says that Environmentalists are selfish, because underlying a supposed concern for the health of the planet is a very self-centered desire for the continuation of the human species.
As he says, "The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? ....the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE! .... The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system."
So why worry, our contribution to global warming will be corrected by the planet. It's not going to go extinct, we are. The planet will get rid of us just that much sooner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/un-environment-programme-_n_684562.html
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/Robinson_Soon.pdf
Then there is Dr. Lindzen, democrat;
http://www.newsweek.com/2001/07/22/the-truth-about-global-warming.html
But you're all so much better trained than he? Correct?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/313/5789/940.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/37/14724.abstract
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031764.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033390.shtml
http://oem.bmj.com/content/64/12/827.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/26/0913352107.abstract?sid=511111d6-a7df-4e55-843d-a751fb821c5a
http://www.decvar.org/documents/epstein.pdf
Dozens more peer reviewed studies available upon request.
To quote "Deep Throat" follow the money. Dr. Lindzen was paid 2500 dollars per day for his services by oil and coal interests. One of his articles was underwritten by OPEC. He has worked for a think tank almost exclusively by Exxon Mobil. His work on satellite data was shown to be totally false. For an article with links see:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm. But I suppose Newsweek is better informed than the National Academy of Science.
Put another way: Our platform to save our planet is ours until we yield it to those whose vision of the future is to profit from the earth's demise.
How about using some common sense. Sure, go ahead and encourage the development of clean energy technologies. In the meantime, drill for our own oil and natural gas so we can lessen our dependence on foreign sources, and assure that we have adequate energy supplies until the clean energy technologies are developed to an economically viable level.
There is no need to kill millions more jobs and force people to start burning wood for heat.
Until Obama got into office, and he is a one term-term anyway, our capitalist system worked. Yes, the USA uses 25% of the worldwide energy produced but the US domestic produict is 23% of the worldwide product.
The enviro movement has had its time and is on the way out, much like the hula hoop,
For 40 years you've been looking at all those little tiny numbers, putting them in nice little columns, and adding and subtracting them into bottom lines of bigger numbers.
Wow. No wonder you haven't a clue about what is going on. Suggest you get a hula hoop and let'r rip Rip.
http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-paulsons-shell-game
Henry Paulson's Shell Game
The emerging compromise on the bailout is better than Paulson's original proposal, but falls far short of what needs to be done. Congress and the next president will have a lot more work to do.
Joseph E. Stiglitz
This article appeared in the October 13, 2008 edition of The Nation.
That was nearly a month before President Obama was even ELECTED, and more than three months before he was inaugurated. The current economic depression is all Bush's fault, and the fact that it hasn't improved more is all the fault of Senate Republicans.
I don't fault those who are convinced that humans are the primary cause of climate warming.
We should really get better studies of the alledged concensus and their many common political and economic traits. I think common sense tells us what it would show, you read the NYTimes as if it was reality, think FDR was great and we need more government on most everything impacting society.
It's become really old, the cult is coming to an end in November. Get use to the idea, I only hope we have trials for those involved in the outright fraud associated to this junk science agenda and the wealth redistribution motive behind it.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/
Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo689.html
http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf
Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. There is an increased greenhouse effect on Earth.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://spiedl.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PSISDG005543000001000164000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/index.htm
Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237.shtml
There is plenty of empirical evidence to support AGW. I have provided but a small fraction. No venting required.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=da&sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.videnskab.dk%2Fcomposite-4862.htm
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html
Regarding the hackery of warmists;
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m8d3-Hiding-the-decline-at-Real-Climate
How the left conduct debate;
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
Real science wouldn't depend on mass politics to convince non-science people on political policy. Science isn't a dictatorship, warmist behave like Aztec priests throwing children into a pit for the good of crop results with about as much evidence.
It should be remembered that the statist solutions of left actually kill people, especially poor people all over the world through rationing and lower growth. The fraud is obvious and they should be face international trial.
Presumably informed folks with a mind and a genuine concern for stewardship have left the sinking ship here and moved to more worthwhile opportunities for meaningful discourse. (So Nick, be a little more protective of those sites, but fanned anyway.)
Jeffrey Sachs wants to tax the world to grow the UN: see this showing his statements indicating that wealth distribution is his concern - not climate: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/DoubleStandard.htm#propaganda
(apparently embedded links don't come through so I reposted with the explicit urls).
Got source code? Yes or no.
Jeffrey Sachs wants to tax the world to grow the UN: see this showing his statements indicating that wealth distribution is his concern - not climate.
* Humans are able to raise or lower Earth's temperature simply by burning more or less fossil fuel;
* Earth is not only warming, but at such a high rate that humans are unable to cope with it;
* It will somehow help America to transfer trillions of our dollars to third world countries;
* Doubling or tripling our energy costs will not ruin America's economy;
* And we should do all of the above even though we will shortly be third in energy consumption, and numbers one and two will do none of the above.
Among other things, publications in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predict a loss of 40% of our agricultural capabilities as the climate warms. The world will (not to mention the US economy) will have a hard time adapting to such a significant loss of productivity in the most agriculturally-productive country on the planet.
How will changing energy sources transfer more money out of the country than the trillions we currently spend on oil?
The only alternative energy source that costs "double or triple" what oil and coal cost is nuclear. Look it up.
We will remain first in per capita energy consumption for the foreseeable future. Personal responsibility, anyone? How about moral leadership?
Imported oil has nothing to do with domestic power production. When you are talking about switching to wind and solar you are talking about moving away from coal, natural gas, and nuclear. A typical basket of power generated from those traditional sources costs around $20/mWh. Wind (onshore) costs double that at its cheapest and triple that at its average range. Solar costs ten times as much. Any significant movement towards these energy sources will dramatically raise the price of power. That in turn will add to the incentives for companies to relocate facilities to countries that don't have artificially high energy costs. If we want the developing world to also raise their energy costs, we are gonig to have to pay the increased costs as was plainly laid out at Copenhagen. That is the transfer of trillions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg
Keep in mind JM that as the world's gullibility in supplying its cash to our Gaming Industry (i.e., the Banksters) dries up and Wall Street's paper-shuffling shell-gamers start jumping out of windows we should expect them to take with them about half of their charade that funds our current GNP.
Do you think the "Made in America" hype is going to do provide growth and stop the hemorrhaging of US job blood to cheap-labor countries? So without the banksters the most significant growth opportunities out there are in the green technology arena.