This is the Face of Global Warming
As severe storms and the resultant flooding continue to batter the Midwest with deadly results, the media is filled with scary stories of the destruction and misery being inflicted. We see headlines about 300,000 Chicagoans without power, state of emergency declarations across four other states, dozens killed by storms from Texas to Minnesota, flooded interstates, and thousands of flooded homes and businesses. It's now commonplace to see news footage of people being rescued off their rooftops, many saying goodbye to their homes for good.
But no news outlet has had the courage to state the obvious: This is the face of global warming. This is it. While no single weather event can be directly pinned to global warming, these are the predictions of the world's best scientist come to terrifying life. Scientists are certain that these deadly events will only become more common -- and more extreme -- as the earth continues to heat up. More intense rainfall, more extreme flooding, more crippled infrastructure and unsanitary conditions, more homes and businesses lost. More, more, more...
These glimpses from storm-ravaged Middle America ought to be a wake-up call. How many more American lives must be lost and property destroyed for this administration to take action?
What will the next pictures look like? Blackouts? Looting? Riots?
Will it have to reach the level of Southeast Asia, where the worst floods in recent memory have affected an estimated 28 million people? In Bangladesh at least 678 are dead and over 50,000 are suffering from flood-related diseases -- millions more now find themselves homeless.
What's it going to take for this White House to act? I hope not that.
Karl Rove should do one last thing before he heads back to Texas to spend more time with his family, bailing out his own flooded basement: he should have the courage to demand that the administration face this problem and DO SOMETHING.
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
Gimme a break...
Drought in the Midwest in the Spring?
CLIMATE CHANGE!!
Too much rain in the summer?
CLIMATE CHANGE!!
One of the nicest summer's in decades in Chicago...
CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
The correction in the Dow....Luk
CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
Having just completed a Master's degree from Columbia University in Climate and Society, I am astounded (perhaps even aghast) at the level of intellectual debate surrounding climate change. As a social sciences person who undertook a largely natural sciences degree, I can tell you that the view from inside the ivory tower is that the scientific community has moved past the point of establishing a consensus on the issue of whether "global warming is real" and "humans (anthropogenic forcing) are the cause." There seem to be too posters who are preoccupied with beating a dead horse. Most of the literature relevant to climate change has now moved on to questions of adaptation and mitigation. As an academic ambassador posting on this message board, I want to make it abundantly clear to all readers that they should not take this incessant and hackneyed debate on climate change to be indicative of the real dialogue being carried out in scientific and policy circles. Feel free to respond with questions or comments. Thank you.
JGC,
Thank you! I'd very much like to take you up on your generous offer.
I'll track you through your BIO page as questions arise. Please feel free to examine mine to understand my thoughts on various topics, such as this one.
For now: what's your opinion of this article about China's "new" position on pollution? Sounds serious to me, but.....
www.nytime
Thanks!
How right you are Laurie David. The media has an overwhelming responsibility to present the facts and educate the public. Global Warming - along with the overfishing and over exploitation of planet Earth will drive the planet into mass extinction mode. Is this not the most important crisis of our time? What makes me angry is that this is entirely preventable. But if we are to survive as a planet we have to completely change the way we live our lives. That is a reality that the status quo (i.e. Big Business and the GW deniers abhor.)
I will repeat an old Cree Indian Prophecy that is worth heeding:
Only after the Last Tree has been cut down,
Only after the Last River has been poisoned,
Only after the Last Fish has been caught,
Only then will you find that
Money Cannot Be Eaten.
richardg,
Genuinely beautiful, and meaningful almost beyond words.
NOT trying to demean your comment, but your Cree prophecy made me think of an incident on HuffPo from last week. When I commented,
“If WE'RE 100% wrong about GW, the WORST to happen will be clean(er) air and water.
If you're 1% wrong, it may spell disaster for all generations to come.”
The first comment in return from this individual was,
”No legitimate, credible, respected, Economist would ever agree with that statement.
Global warming? Destruction of the planet, wildlife, children and quality of life for every living human EQUALS....
‘Nuff said?
http://www
Thank you VERY much for sharing...
Repeat. Every single nations Academy of Sciences is on board with climate change being man made carbon output, unprecedented in history. Rarely has the scientific community reached such consensus. When you listen to your naysayers investigate where they are getting their funding. It is the same scam as the decades long fake "institutes" to cast doubt on tobacco causing cancer.
Humans are definitely launching a heavy assault upon the Earth, on several fronts -- polluting the atmosphere, depleting the ever-diminishing natural resources, destroying natural habitat for the survival of other species, etc. etc.-- all of which are detrimental for our own survival.
Our unlimited population growth is only exacerbating environmental problems. The development of technology that would solve those problems is not keeping pace with our burgeoning population; therefore, population control, my friends, should be a priority. For all of those true believers of GW who think that our world will be a complete mess fifty years from now, I wonder how many of them continue to have children. And for those who do, my next question is: Why? You will be leaving them a legacy of an Earth destroyed by millennia of previous generations of people, many of whom selfishly exploited our environment for their own short-sighted benefit.
One good thing about the melting of all of those glaciers is the possibility of Noah’s ark finally being exposed on the upper slopes of Mount Ararat. Such an monumental discovery would prove the legitimacy of the Bible and Christianity. One would therefore be able to extrapolate from that, making the assumption that the “second coming of Christ” is at hand, as is being espoused by many evangelical Christians. “Rapture” will rescue all of the true believers, sparing them from the disturbing scenario of living in an Earth destroyed by them and their forebears. The ark discovery would marginalize the concerns of environmentalists who criticize our extravagant, selfish lifestyles -- living as if there is no tomorrow -- which are encouraged by President Bush and his republican cohorts. We should listen to Bush, because he is the same “born-again Christian” whose most-admired mentor was “Jesus Christ” and who spent his time “praying” to his Christian god before he took us into Iraq, instead of wisely spending his time studying Islamic culture and learning about the possibility of a Sunni/Shii
Hallelujah!
nwm777,
The way I remember Mr. bush responding to the debate question about who he wanted to be like, or have dinner with, or tuck him into bed, or some such equally patronizing crap, was a bit different.
His answer was NOT “Jesus Christ”, as you claim. It was “Christ.”.
"Christ" ISN’T a PERSON. It's a title. That’s like responding “leader” or “teacher” or “prophet”, instead of “Gandhi” or “MLK, Jr.”, or “Einstein”.
"Jesus", (IF that's what he meant) is the name of the person.
I'm being harsh. Why would he be expected to know that? I'm sure it's not in the Bible, or anything.
As for being “born again”, why would a true Christian make insulting comments behind the backs of the fundamentalists who came to the oval office to discuss faith-based initiatives? Unless, of course, being “born again” gives him forgiveness for anything, forever. RIGHT?
I think you may be disappointed in Noah’s Ark, when the price for finding it is the last drop of potable water on the planet.
Thanks, but.....
Why has it taken so long to accept this inevitable truth?
Why did the governments not trust the wisdom of indigenous peoples all along the way, that this would be the results of abusing there mother, earth.
Scientists take too long to justifiably describe the facts of the obvious and government can not loose faith of the people. Now the governments primary job is to keep the masses at bay and control world wide chaos.
The media all want to take the credit for being the "first with the late breaking news", all in the name of gaining (greed) readership. The news journalist and talking heads are all more important than the news itself.
Industry will not be able to keep up with the necessary demands to appease the fear and panic that will inevitably arise.
The oceans are being raped , pillaged and plundered, now they are literally dying, (at least the part that can feed people directly)
Oh well it's all a mute point now. I've been telling about this inevitability now since 1962. I could see it coming without scientist. I am the (self proclaimed) scientist and researcher. I didn't need an institution to justify my findings or argue he facts.
So now all I can say is, "I told you so".
"Do something?"
Do what, exactly? This problem has been a long time coming. Should we cut down on emissions?
Unfortunately, all the electric cars in the world aren't going to keep third world countries like India and China from pursuing rampant development and resulting pollution. It's a globe, you know. We took our turn at poisoning it. Just watch what happens when negligent billions add their contributions.
No offense. But, Oh brother. A few weeks ago, while we teetered on drought, that was proof of GW. Now floods? I'm in the Midwest, and my family is up in flood land (no damage or harm, thank God). You know what? It's happened before. Oh, it hasn't been this bad since the early 20th, but it has happened. The more the GW crowd uses the argument that ‘all weather diversions from a 78 degree, sunny day with a slight northerly breeze at 5mph is proof of GW’, the more they are going to lose credibility with anyone who has dealt with salesmen before.
One or two unusual seasons do not prove Climate Change. The unusually cool weather in South America and South Africa do not prove Global Cooling. Contrary to what Al Gore may say, the debate about Global Warming is not over. Approximately 1 degree Celsius average temperature increase cannot explain this years unusually heavy precipitation. Short term WEATHER variations can explain it. It is not simply scientists on the lunatic fringe who do not accept Global Warming. A growing number of mainstream scientists do not accept it. One prominent scientist said that Global Warming hysteria has passed it's peak.
Just what are we supposed to do? You think because Bush talks to god, that he can intervene?
While I do not deny that our climate is changing, that natural disasters seem to be getting more massive, how are we supposed to control the planets weather. And if we're this deep into the change, have no control on the rest of the worlds polluting ways, what are we supposed to do?
Once again the arrogance of humanity never fails to amaze me. I smell a bunch of new taxes coming our way. That's what Bush and Congress will wind up doing. They'll tax again and again and call it some fancy name and the money will go toward some ad campaign designed to encourage Americans to drive less, recycle, and eat vegan.
And then they'll give away the rest of the money to Israel so they can have universal health care.
See its all good.
There is no disagreement among scientists bout global warming. It is real valid science. And unfortunately we are doomed. If you look at the predictions and the facts, the pollution we put into the earth 10 years ago hasn't really shown up and affected us yet. Unless we change the way the entire world does business right away, we are doomed.
One of the reasons we're experiencing flooding in Iowa, where I live, is because of overdevelopment and our state's monoculture (exclusive production of corn/beans). The natural flood barriers are disappeari
The Precautionary Principle is what is needed for these comments.
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientific
“In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.”
“The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties.”
“It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." - Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998
The precautionary principle, once virtually unknown in the U.S., is now a more familiar phenomenon. In December 2001 the New York Times Magazine listed the principle as one of the most influential ideas of the year, describing the intellectual, ethical, and policy framework the Science & Environmental Health Network (SEHN) had developed around the principle.
For example, in June 2003, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco became the first government body in the United States to make the precautionary principle the basis for all its environmental policy.
All statements of the Precautionary Principle contain a version of this formula:
When the health of humans and the environment is at stake, it may not be necessary to wait for scientific certainty to take protective action.
[NOTE: the wikipedia definition has been edited to use the phrases “a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm...”]
ss,
In the case of GW, who would be considered the "proponent"?
Hell of a first comment, friend. I WILL look this up.
Thanks!
Forgot the link.....
http://www
Interesting article in Parade Magazine. It talks about coal mine fires in India and China. India loses about 10 million tons annually to coal mine fires. But in China 200 million tons of coal are burned annually due to coal mine fires. Interestingly enough that puts out as much or more carbon dioxide emmission that the entire US burning all the gasoline we burn.
Seems to me that if there were something done about that it would go a long way to fixing "global warming." Of course it would do nothing to socialize US industry, so why worry about it, right?
You're saying we should do nothing until China cures its coal mine fires.
Brilliant!
Why do all repigs have opinions that mostly provide evidence that they were dropped over and over on their heads when they were babies?
Wrong. And why hide behind a coal fire in a mine and not think about the oil fire going on each and everyday when car ignitions are turned. Also, just out of interest what has socializing to do with any of this? Try to keep to the argument. Concern about climate change has nothing to do about socializing (do you mean socialism?). I think of socializing as something I do at a party.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
