In the lead up to the GOP New Hampshire primary, one thing has become abundantly clear: climate change has few friends in this field of candidates.
So visibly absent is the subject of climate change from ongoing stump speeches that New Hampshire scientists -- representing institutions such as the University of New Hampshire and Dartmouth-have banded together in a plea for republican candidates to, at the very least, accept the reality of shifting global temperatures.
In reviewing the front-running republican websites, not one even mentions climate change, let alone sets out a plan to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) we emit as a nation -- (the U.S. being the second largest emitter of GHGs worldwide).
This signals a prime opportunity for leading-edge U.S. corporations to ordain themselves as the voice of reason. While iconic symbols of American industry (IBM, Bank of America, Nike, and Levi's for starters) are taking progressive action on climate change, candidates who purport themselves as 21st century businessmen refuse to even acknowledge the science of humanity's biggest challenge. This leaves one to wonder just how much of a lagging indicator politicians truly are to the status quo.
Major corporations are no longer just playing to the green crowd because of its popularity. Climate change is being addressed at the highest levels of business because it poses an immediate risk to operations, supply chains and future investments. A look at the 2011 Carbon Disclosure Project Global 500 report reveals the 85 percent of respondents to last year's survey reported business risks associated with climate change.
So why isn't there more coordinated vocalization from the private sector demanding that presidential candidates address the issue?
To be sure, groups such as Ceres' Businesses for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) are valiantly attempting to move the needle on Capitol Hill, but perhaps it is time to bring corporate activism to the level of campaign contributions. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2010 to remove the ceiling on the amount corporations are legally allowed to spend on campaign donations, the next logical step, it would seem, is for businesses affected by climate change risk to vote with their dollars for a presidential candidate who reflects those interests.
It is well understood that this country is in need of an economic kick-start, and that any plans for job creation will appeal equally to the left, the right and the coveted independent swing vote in this year's election. What has become less clear, however, is why the quest for a low-carbon future and innovative clean energy solutions have become such a source of vitriol for the conservative agenda.
Climate change is no longer an issue of activism or alarmism. It is a simple fact that deserves the attention of anyone vying for the position of Commander in Chief.
There comes a time when the entire political spectrum needs to have an informed discussion that would translate into a modern approach to 21st century energy and carbon policy. That time is now.
Mike Bellamente is the project director of Climate Counts, a New Hampshire-based nonprofit that annually ranks major corporations on their climate leadership.
Follow Mike Bellamente on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@mbellamente
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
There is no question that themperatures have always had big changes on this planet, the question is, does man made Co2 have any involvement and according to most non-Government or UN scientists, this has not been proven. Look up people like Dr. Easterbrook, get someone like him behind this idea and you will get politicians to join the club but when the only people who will say there is "man caused" global warming ar those who are making money off the Government tit or the products they sell because of this concept (Al Gore), no self-respecting politician is going to saddle themselves with this.
As a sidenote, a lot of research has been done with solar activity and from the information that has been shown so far, temperatures seem in lockstep with solar activity almost perfectly. More activity, higher temperatures, lower activity, lower temperatures. This is looking like a better science and not driven by politics or people trying to make money by scaring other people.
This is the news, I do not write it but I do see it as well as all Americans. The only people still claiming there is such a things as "man caused" global warming is those who stand to get power or money from this idea. Not 1 real scientist who does not need money from a Government or company selling "green" products is supporting this idea.
Not 1.
Oh, really? Gee, then what about all this research that shows that global temperatures have climbed whereas the sun hasn't warmed at all (in fact, it's cooled slightly since 1979)?
Foster and Rahmstorf 2011: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf
Huber and Knutti 2011: http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf
Erlykin et al. 2009: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf
Benestad and Schmidt 2009: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B
Lean and Rind 2008: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034864.shtml
Lockwood and Fröhlich 2008: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract
Lockwood 2008: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract
Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007: http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf
Ammann et al. 2007: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full
Foukal et al. 2006: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf
Scafetta and West 2006: http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Sun%20&%20Global%20Warming_GRL_2006.pdf
There's more but by now you should have the idea.
Fixed it for you. There's plenty of evidence out there. The type of "proof" you require is impossible, as it would require us to have two identical planets, one with CO2 in the atmosphere, the other without. As it is, we've only one planet.
On the contrary, the basic, observed science refutes the underlying hypothesis. Average global temperatures have only risen during two periods: 1910-1940 and 1975-2000. Global temperatures have either dropped or stabilized for 95 of the last 150 years. If anthropogenic global warming were truly occurring, it stands to reason the earth would never see prolonged periods of cooling or stabilized temperatures, and certainly not over the 35-year period from 1940-1975, arguably producing some of the most concentrated levels of C02 in history.
Not to mention the Vostok and Greenland ice core samples show that average global temperatures have far exceeded current levels during the past 10,000 years (when the current warming trend actually started), and on numerous occasions, having nothing to do with human C02 whatsoever. The ice cores also indicate that C02 is a result of warming, not the cause.
Well, no, not actually. It's just the warmest in the past 100 years...hardly a period of time to even measure climate, much less assess that it's actually changing. Of course, this is precisely why proponents of man-made global warming only focus on the past 100-150 years, because the Vostok and Greenland ice core samples show average global temperatures have far exceeded current levels, and on numerous occasion in the past 10,000 years. Or, did you just ignore that part of my last comment?
Here's an easy-to-follow, narrated Youtube that shows the NOAA ice core data. Educate yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE
"The past decade was the warmest on record and the first few years of this decade are warmer than the past decade."
You failed to qualify that statement with "warmest on record in the past 150 years of recorded weather." It most certainly isn't the warmest decade the earth has ever seen, as is clearly shown in the Vostok and Greenland ice core data. Here is the HadCRUT data for the past 150 years:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
The points made about Arctic ice, etc, simply have no bearing in the overall measurement of long-term climate over thousands of years. The earth has gone through periods of no ice before...this is nothing new in the earth's geological history. I encourage you to review the data in the Vostok and Greenland ice core data which shows the earth has experienced much higher temperatures than current levels, and on numerous occasions in the past 10,000 years, which is when the current warming trend actually started. Here is a link to a narrated review of the ice core data:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE
Furthermore, the ice core data show that rising C02 levels are the result of warming trends, not the cause of them.
Genthon et al. 1987: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v329/n6138/abs/329414a0.html
Masson et al. 2000: ftp://ftp.bartol.udel.edu/anita/amir/Corsika_files/Attenuation_reflectivity/masson.pdf
Petit et al. 1999: http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf
The Masson et al. article should be of great interest to you.