Wednesday night, I was honored at the National Wildlife Federation's Voices for Wildlife gala.
I salute the National Wildlife Federation for its 75 years of tireless effort to help save our wildlife, their habitat, and to fight global warming. They worked with Vice President Gore's Climate Project, an effort to train thousands to share his message with the public. Since 2006, fellow activists have delivered more than 70,000 presentations reaching a global audience of more than 7.3 million people. The message was clear: the urgency and solvability of climate change is real.
I'm particularly proud to have worked alongside NWF to carry this message to youth through An Inconvenient Truth in the Classroom and a corresponding website, Climate Classroom, designed for teens. Today's kids will inherit the climate crisis -- we must equip them with the knowledge to solve it.
Sadly, the message of An Inconvenient Truth still rings true today: Climate change is real and urgent. It should be addressed now.
Yet Congress is in denial.
The signals become more compelling with each passing day. The film predicted some of the extreme weather events that have become all too common this year across the country. Communities have been battered by: severe flooding, heat waves, fires, droughts, rainfalls, tornadoes and hurricanes. And we are barely into hurricane season.
The climate is sending us a message. Congress seems deaf.
Big Energy, the polluters, spent $1 billion over the past two years on campaigns and slick, high-priced lobbying to perpetuate America's addictive over-reliance on fossil fuels. Now they are pushing for a 2,000-mile, $14 billion pipeline to splice through five states and ship Canadian crude oil, one of the highest carbon dirty fuels on earth, to Gulf refineries.
Last year, Congress debated, dawdled and dithered. This year is more of the same. The bottom line remains that Congress has still not passed legislation to curb carbon pollution and boost renewable energy solutions.
If inaction weren't enough of an insult, now some in Congress are trying to disable the Environmental Protection Agency and undermine the Clean Air Act, one of America's most important public health and environmental laws. And in the never-ending wrangling about cutting the deficit and debt, let's not forget the apparently sacred tax subsidies Congress gives oil companies, while legislators slash investments in clean energy.
Congress seems immune.
People want action. A May poll conducted by George Mason University found broad public support: 91 percent of Americans say developing sources of clean energy should be a priority for the president and Congress, including 85 percent of Republicans, 89 percent of Independents, and 97 percent of Democrats.
Hello, Congress -- the solution is clear: conserve energy, invest in renewable energy, end oil subsidies, and pass climate legislation on a federal level! An Inconvenient Truth brought home the climate change message to millions around the world, but not to Congress. Apparently, Congress thinks it's inconvenient to act.
So now that fundraising season is in full swing, let's give our elected leaders an inconvenient truth of their own: Every single one of us must send the strongest message possible to our politicians... that there won't be a single drop of contribution made until you are certain they will take strong, decisive legislative action to confront the climate crisis.
Mexicans, Papua New Guinea try to break climate talk deadlock but success is ...
UN climate talks make scant progress to save Kyoto
EU climate chiefs in row over future of emissions trading
The new Ice Age: Climate change could slow as sun simmers down
Mitt Romney receives 'backing' from Al Gore over climate change stance
Scientists Seek to Adapt Crops to Climate Change
http://theresilientearth.com/
Researchers Say UN Climate Goals Impossible
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 12:38
International negotiators at a recent UN climate conference held in Bangkok repeated the demand that global warming this century be limited to no more than 2˚C. But while those attending the UN boondoggle stuck to the climate alarmist party line, results from a newly published Canadian government climate study concluded that “it is unlikely that warming can be limited to the 2˚C target.” The modeling based paper found that reaching the stated IPCC goal would require that greenhouse emissions “ramp down to zero immediately,” which means shutting down the global economy and banning the automobile. Moreover, starting in 2050 scientists would need to actively remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, requiring a rush to implement controversial and possibly dangerous geoengineering programs. Why does the global warming lobby continue demanding the impossible? Perhaps it is because global warming isn't about climate change at all.
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations…
From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything... In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
Global Peak Oil will "solve" the global climate change problem after a few years when no one can afford to pay for hydrocarbon based fuels.
Of course the BAD news is ...
The massive changes that are needed for global climate change are the same exact changes need for Global Peak Oil, BUT ...
The US has WASTED over 40 years doing NOTHING and will only have a few years to completely rebuild get US energy production, distribution and usage infrastructure.
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/
Emissions trading is proven to the way to stop pollution at minimum cost to the consumer.
:)
http://tinyurl.com/26gy5q
Gore is carbon neutral.
Did you deniers know that Al Gore is not involved in the science of climatology?
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_gfdl.html
"The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"
When does Congress move swiftly? When the wealthy tell them to. Banking deregulation, Medicare prescription drug program, trade agreements, wars, etc., etc., etc.
http://tinyurl.com/6bzz8vz
Anybody who can read a basic graph can see that you don't know what you're talking about.
For example, a high school student would know how to spell logarithm. And this has been pointed out to you. It is just that you do not detect or recognize technical things. Still you are quite willing to ridicule science.
Probably a denier drone, paid piecework by Heartland or some other front group for Big Oil.
As it turns out, there's one scientist out there named Robert Muller who gets his money from the free market. He received his funding from the libertarian oil magnates, the Koch brothers. According to conservatives, that makes him a totally impartial source of expertise.
Here's what Muller said when he testified before Congress:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/republicans-get-inconvenient-replies-at-climate-hearing/
"We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.
Many US stations have low quality rankings according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in the “poor” stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations.
The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends."
Looks like even the freemarketeers have gotten a clue. Global warming is here. It's been happening for decades and it's happening right now.
http://tinyurl.com/6y3b37
Right now we are much hotter than we ever were in human history, even before the little ice age during the medieval warm period. And the temperature is changing much faster now than it ever did.
That would be untrue. Sounds just like the kind of rot that Heartland dispenses.
See NASA and NOAA and for good examples, skepticalscience.com
Please post a link to this. Can't find anything that states the U.S. is demanding the world continue to pollute?
the GOP is crying gloom and doom and telling us Obama's plans will cost us more in the long run than using oil. The GOP still insists on offshore drilling even though we all know the dangers that can bring.
We have evolved to eat and procreate, and as James Lovelock puts it: we are tribal carnivores, not gentle gardeners. Climate change is about to forge a different future for us. http://www.yourmedievalfuture.com/
Here’s the short form. Watch these 4 min at least. Didn’t hear this in the news, did you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
Here’s the long form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI
The IPCC got another black-eye last week when it contended in its press release that “Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.” Then the report came out. It was written by Greenpeace cherry-picking scientific papers, and making stuff up. This has riled serious warmists, if you have been following it.
Al Gore doesn’t have any credibility. He stands to make multi-billions from a carbon tax. (His company was registered in the City of London before he came out with his film.) And a filmmaker who did Gore’s film doesn’t cut it either. Muller’s new project at Berkeley using 100% of the real data does: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/
Let us know when there is something we can actually look at.
Here's what Muller actually said in his testimony before Congress:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/republicans-get-inconvenient-replies-at-climate-hearing/
"We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.
Many US stations have low quality rankings according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in the “poor” stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations.
The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends."
And BTW, this affirmation of the temperature data comes from an individual who accepted funding by the Koch brothers. I know you guys like to pretend that scientists fudge data so they can get rich off of government research grants, but this guy was funded by the oil industry.
We are supposed to be the ones who operate off facts instead of emotion.
We are supposed to be the ones cautious about unintended consequences.
We are supposed to be the ones who care about America's security.
Now we're faced with incontrovertible evidence of the biggest unintended consequence in human history, one that even the Pentagon recognizes as a threat to American security, and you people let politicians and entertainers convince you that the "conservative" thing to do is attack science and pretend there's no problem. And why do you let them do that to you? Because you're terrified someone will call you a RINO if you don't moo with the herd.
Hello, deniers...
"Now we're faced with incontrovertible evidence" Of course it is not incontrovertible and becoming more and more controverted. That's the problem. Or is is a warning sign?
Here is a logical solution: The warming shown by uncontroverted satellite temp records correlate very well with UN IPCC calculations and predictions about the increase of CO2 concentrations and the nature of the CO2 molecule will produce 1.0C of average global warming with CO2 saturation level at about doubling of pre-industrial CO2 concentrations. Correlate very well. If you want that to be causation, so be it. The recent heating proves an IPCC CO2 theory. There. I said increased CO2 means warmer temps, agreeing with text right out of IPCC reports.
But I'm still a "denier." In fact, that repeating of true IPCC science is just about the scariest thing that can be said for the climate industry. Why? Because the "deniers" who say AGW is exaggerated, are completely right, as proven by satellite temp records and IPCC.
See, 1.0C warming is not "scary". No crisis, no money. So the climate "scientists" invent widely variant ideas of "net positive feedbacks" and have models reproduce their results of 3-5 C warming with CO2 doubling. Although every model showing such has had no support in actual temp records.
So, when you say "denier," remember the "deniers" don't necessarily deny an effect for CO2.
There we go again, it is all a religion.
"See, 1.0C warming is not "scary". No crisis, no money. So the climate "scientists" invent widely variant ideas of "net positive feedbacks" and have models reproduce their results of 3-5 C warming with CO2 doubling. Although every model showing such has had no support in actual temp records."
The second and third derivatives of the rate of change is scary. Hard to be comfortable about where that is going. 3 to 5 deg C scares me, it should scare you.