Why I'm Joining The Hopenhagen Movement
We are in much worse shape now than anyone could have anticipated, but we've also never been closer to rallying the world leaders to solving the problem of global warming once and for all. But facts are grim. Experts thought the impact was going to be felt by the next generation, but the fact is, we're feeling it now. It's happening in the US in Texas, in the Midwest, on the East Coast. Alaska is suffering the most extreme consequences right now, with entire villages having to relocate because of melting permafrost and soil erosion. Internationally, the glaciers of Greenland are melting at a more rapid pace than originally predicted. The very existence of the Maldives is threatened by rising sea levels. Kenya and Ethopia are experiencing severe drought. And the list goes on. Not a single continent is untouched by climate change, not a single global citizen will be able to avoid its catastrophic effects.
But we still have the power to choose the kind of world we live in. At StopGlobalWarming.org, more than 1.3 million citizens are demanding solutions to stop global warming. And when leaders from 192 countries meet in December at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, they'll face one of the greatest challenges of our time. But they can't do it alone. We all have a part to play by demanding an ambitious binding agreement to reduce carbon emissions. For this reason, I'm proud to kickoff the Voices of Hopenhagen series, which will feature short essays from the people spearheading the movement. But there is no movement with out you. I'm joining Hopenhagen because everything I love and care about is at stake. I'm joining Hopenhagen because I do not want the day to come when my daughters ask us why we did not do more. I ask that you join me.
If we are going to solve the problems bearing down on us we have to have a complete shift in consciousness. Time is of the essence, with just seven weeks until the summit begins. So make your voice heard so that this December we get real results out of Copenhagen.
I want my daughters to be able to enjoy snowy winters, and see the leaves change colors when they're supposed to. I want them to visit Yellowstone National Park and spot a bear. I don't want their generation to be the generation that is defined by mass species extinction. I want them live in a world where we face the truth about our problems and do everything we can to solve them.
This means accepting the fact that the way we are living is causing huge damage to our planet. Change means that once we accept that responsibility, we do everything in our power to correct our course. Change means hope, not despair. Let's turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen. Sign the climate petition and become a citizen at Hopenhagen.org. The choice is ours.
Laurie David is devoted to stopping global warming. She founded the Stop Global Warming Virtual March with Senator John McCain and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that is engaging religious leaders, sports figures, elected officials from all sides of the aisle, business leaders, and every day Americans to urge the United States to address the ticking time bomb that is global warming.
--
Help turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen at hopenhagen.org.
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
Peoples really believe the workaday scientist have conspired to do in the fossil sellers, all for a workaday salary??????
Who has the money? Fossil sellers do.
Humans are dumping Giga tons of pollutants, including co2 methane, mercury, lead
Into the very air we breath.
I would argue that that's from from first principles.
You don't mind if I put blow some mercury vapor at you, do you?
And how man more Energy Wars do we want?
We have thousands of good reasons to stop the emissions of poisons where possible, and tax what we need to encourage clean replacements.
3 cent rooftop solar and BioChar Biofules are ready to supply the worlds energy and fuel needs, cheaper, cleanly safely, and forever. see my profile for proof.
Those are all good reasons to believe in the theory of man-made global warming. Except that none of them are scientific reasons.
But if we act on those reasons for their own merit, like energy independence, we'll get a better outcome than signing away our nation to UN control.
Here's a few scientific reasons to believe in man-made global warming:
1: The greenhouse gas theory of global warming is scientific fact.
2: Per the greenhouse gas theory of global warming, the 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the dawn of the fossil fuel era confers a significant thermal increase on the earth-atmosphere system - an increase that corresponds to a substantial portion of the observed global warming over the same time period.
3: Per the greenhouse gas theory of global warming other global warming greenhouse gas forcing agents that man has put intro the atmosphere over that same time period in addition to CO2 - notably methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and CFCs - confer still more thermal increase to the earth-atmosphere system.
4: There has been no ongoing, long-term correlation between solar activity and the observed strong global warming over the past 4 decades.
Exaggerated Claims Hurt the Man-made Global Warming Movement.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6896152.ece
but then the article finishes with the word inexorable lol..
WE'RE STILL DOOMED!!!
The main stream media often adds a final paragraph that often conflicts with the very meat of the article, so that it is made clear that the author believes in AGW.
Yet the factual events indicate that the future is much less clear, is much more unpredictable than most people are willing to admit.
We don't fully understand how the universe works; we have trouble predicting the weather even two months in advance.
Climate scientists need to be more modest about their claims of being able to see the future.
R2 says: "Yet the factual events indicate that the future is much less clear, is much more unpredictable than most people are willing to admit."
Which factual events are you talking about? Most of the projections about climate change have been too conservative to date!
you're so right laurie..
we must stop the climate from changing..
we must.. that's been going on long enough!
No one is suggesting that. There is a need to control the impact of human activity on climate.
Vegetarianism is the main solution to this crisis.
You keep spouting that nonsense
it would help, but you would make more progress persuading people to REDUCE the amount of meat they eat, rather than eliminate.
That is what you want, right?
Ms David seems unaware of or indifferent to "the truth " about our problems. Here are a few truths.
Data from Brtains Hadley Center show that sea surface temperatures in 2008 were cooler than in 1997. - 11 years with with no warming and CO2 up 6%.
A warmer world is in general a more humid world. The droughts in California and Kenya,were caused by the cooling of the Northern Pacific and Indian oceans respectively - not by warming.
Polar bear numbers have increased over the last 40 years. Grizzly bear and wolf populations in Yellowstone are doing well.
Sea levels in the Maldives are 20 cm lower than they were in 1970 and have been stable for the l;ast 30 years according to data from Dr Morner - leader of the Maldives sea level project.
Solar activity is in a declining phase - with the start of Solar cycle 24 being delayed.
Please wake up from your delusions and look at the real data.Flawed model projections are not data.
Dr Abdussamatov - a prominent Russian astrophysicist suggests that earth will enter a signifcant cooling phase from 2013 on. Cooler temperatures would be far more dangerous to world food production than a little warming . CO2 is the main plant food - not a pollutant. If Ms David really wants to help mankind she should be advocating greater use of fossil fuels to help feed the growing population.
Just curious why you think the vast bulk of scientists around the world seem to disagree with you, Norpag. Do you think there's some sort of conspiracy?
Norpag: "Data from Brtains Hadley Center show that sea surface temperatures in 2008 were cooler than in 1997.
Misleading cherry picking of the data. First off you are confusing 1997 with 1998; 1998 was per the Hadley dataset the hottest year on direct record. 1998 was also a very strong El Nino year, and El Ninos bring warm water to ocean surface. 2008 was by contrast a La Nina year; La Ninas bring cold water to ocean surface. As such its not surprising that 1998 had higher sea surface temperature than 2008, the mean global temperature having increased over that time period notwithstanding.
Norpag: "11 years with with no warming."
Wrong. The mean global temperature has increased over that time period.
Norpag: "Polar bear numbers have increased over the last 40 years."
Due to hunting restrictions put in place over that time period.
Norpag: "Sea levels in the Maldives are 20 cm lower than they were in 1970 and have been stable for the last 30 years according to data from Dr Morner."
That "finding" is in conflict with the vast majority of studies demonstrating that sea levels are rising, including a study that has repudiated Mormer's "finding."
Norpag: "Solar activity is in a declining phase"
Which in combination with the fact that the global mean temperature has increased during the same time period is further evidence that solar activity is not the primary driver in current global warming.
Publicola - I'm not confusing anything - you clearly have not checked the data.Anyone reading this can see who is right, Google - Hadley Cru - scroll down to SST2 GL. The data show exactly what I said. Average 2008 SST was cooler than 1997 SST . I refer to SSTs because the thermal inertia of the oceans creates a smoother curve showing the overall trend better than the land temperatures which are much more noisy.
Ms David referred to the Maldives. Morners data refers to the Maldives. I referred to the Maldives . Quote me a reference to data from the Maldives which contradicts Morner.
Timezone - Give me one reference from any scientist who says that the Hadley data for the years 1997 - 2008 are wrong.
Publicola - on your last point - the SST curve Turns over in 2003. SSTs and global temps have declined with the fading solar activity since then. We are a few years past a temperature peak. A stronger drop in temperatures is possible from 2013 or 2014 on.
Such a drop is more likely than a warming trend over the next 20 - 40 years.
Let's cut pollutions of all types, by regulation and taxing those we can't outlaw right away.
No Bankster Cap and Trade.
Just a simple 1$ per ton carbon equivalent pollution tax.
Why is the focus on "global warming"?
I thought being green and not polluting were legitimate and self-evident goals in-and-of themselves.
If we pollute in a way that cools the planet, is that good?
What if our current warming cycle is just a cycle related to solar or other activity...won't our focus on "warming" discourage true environmentalism (i.e., don't pollute because it uses limited clean air and water)?
best!
Notrepublicrat: "What if our current warming cycle is just a cycle related to solar or other activity"
It's of course related. What solar activity is not per the overwhelming body of research on the question, however, is the primary driver of current global warming.
say pub..
q: when and where is water vapor not self-forcing?
We all agree water vapor accounts for most of the warming of the planet. What's your point?
It's so important to show world leaders just how serious we are about the need for climate change legislation through our own actions. Grassroots-style activism is a lot more convincing than just signing a petition is. Connecting with a community of individuals who are making a difference, joining together, and fostering change will their own bare hands is the first step. If you're looking to get involved, a great place to learn and connect with other active citizens is with an online community like www.changents.com/earthkeepers . Places like this are about more than just spreading ideas, they're about making them tangible.
If we successfully pass enough environmental regulations restricting manufacturing, energy and development, we’ll succeed at preventing the US from consuming a disproportionate portion of the earth’s resources and de-developing this country. We’ve had some success and the US is clearly declining on the world stage in terms of economic and military status. We need to push harder than ever in order to ensure the US will not be world economic or consumption leader in the future! That way, our children and our grandchildren will be able to live in a socialist society similar to Cuba, Venezuela or the former USSR where an all powerful govt. will level the playing field for all!
In 2006 India and China produced more gasses that may harm the world then the USA did. The truth is America is doing more for the environment then the rest of the world combined.
You want more, you will not get it from countries that are pushing more manufacturing, steel mills and construction because they have given their people a taste of the good life, there are billions to be made and ego is in the lead.
In the USA you could demand ten new atomic plants built in central states, Wyoming? area to supply more clean energy. You could explore the use of smaller water power power plants that set on the bottom of rivers to make power, you could demand the now owned by the US government car manufacturers to produce the electric car from India and demand that anyone in a mega city have to own one or a car that gets fifty miles to the gallon.
You could, but you will not demand this.
Cars with 50mpg are available now, they only need to be tweaked for looks. Electrical cars should be a high priority, they have them that are great to drive and own, using water to make power is wise and natural, something like the wave generators, but for all of these you need a strong American consumer and great jobs...
middleamerican2010
Casey
LAurie whats a Posative feed back.. and a negative and what does the IPCC report have to say on them
"Positive feedback" in the context of global warming is usually in reference to factors that amplify global warming indirectly. For example, it is established scientific fact that the 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the dawn of the fossil fuel era confers a substantial energy increase to the earth-atmosphere system; per IPCC report and the general scientific consensus said CO2 increase creates even more warming via water vapor induction - a positive feedback relationship.
A small minority of scientists contest this that positive feedback relationship exists and instead argue it may be a negative feedback instead - perhaps foremost amongst them is Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who not incidentally also argues that Creationism is as scientifically valid as evolution.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
