The First Step is Admitting You Have a Problem
In the past month, the House Minority Leader called the idea that carbon dioxide - a greenhouse gas and known carcinogen - is dangerous "almost comical," and members of his party suggested that the planet is actually cooling and "carbon-starved" and invited a global warming denier as a public witness to a Congressional hearing on the topic.
As anyone with experience with recovery knows, the first step in addressing a crisis is to admit that you have a problem. Unfortunately, these displays and others make it increasingly clear that, despite conclusive scientific evidence on the existence of global warming and the human role, some elected officials refuse to take Step 1.
As Congress begins the process of legislating to protect humans and ecosystems from the effects of global warming, I believe we need a "temperature check."
Today - Earth Day - I introduced a resolution that says three very simple things critical to a constructive dialogue on global warming:
(1) The Earth is warming;
(2) Human activity plays large role in that warming;
(3) Congress can mitigate the risks through legislation.
The first two - recognizing the existence of global warming and the role of human activity - are not controversial. They have been proven by countless scientific and peer-reviewed studies and accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Academies of Sciences, and numerous scientific organizations.
Accepting the third premise acknowledges that we can and must do something about it.
On an issue so vital to the sustainability of our planet, we cannot afford for those who are unwilling to take Step 1 based on political ideology to stall progress on addressing global climate change. This resolution will be a good indication of who is willing to admit we have a problem.
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
Things are becoming more clear.
http://www
My apologies to those who already knew.
Representative Lowey,
Offering a resolution that says "the earth is warming" doesn't itself make its so. Further, the statement is false. The earth has not warmed since 1998. Also, the global air temperature in 2008 was considerably lower than 1998, and this year is only very marginally warmer than 2008. So we are currently living in a cooler world than we were in 1998.
Besides air temperature measurements, there are other recent signs in nature that the earth is not warming, if you would only look for them. The oceans have stopped warming, and the rate of sea level rise has slowed down since 1998. Warm water expands; cooler water contracts.
Also, our sun has been gradually moving into a very cool phase, which in the past has been associated with much cooler weather on earth. Some scientists are forecasting a couple of decades of cooling weather ahead.
It is not wise to tease mother nature, by stating "the earth is warming" when it is not. It may be prudent for the government to prepare for the real possibility of a cooler climate ahead, instead of denying the reality of the situation.
Under natural conditions, the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years (melting glaciers, loss of sea ice, flooding of islands, etc,) took at least tens of thousands of years. Are deniers too ignorant to imagine geologic time?
Wally, I respectfully disagree. With research, I think you'll find that either the things you describe are not happening, or that the extent of any of them are completely in line with geologic precedent.
You can't prove some things - but that doesn't make them untrue. Darwin's theory cannot be proven, Einstein's theory of relativity cannot, Newton's theory of gravity cannot be proven either (go ahead - try to PROVE that gravity actually exists!). But the point with all 3 of these is that they have been proven by subsequent real discoveries and anecdotal evidence. Many, many, many wonders of our modern world would not be possible without them, but yet we have no means to make an experiment that will prove each one. The same is true with global warming. We cannot make another Earth that we could use as a control while we have yet a third earth that we would run experiments with to increase or decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to prove the original thesis.
And since we have only the one, would you want to destroy it if there is the slightest chance the theory is correct? Look at the outcomes in all scenarios and the reasonable person would conclude that it certainly does no harm (whether the theory is right or wrong) to lower the CO2 levels. Those that use the argument of economics are trying to put the importance of humans above that of the planet - kind of like saying the sun revolves around the earth as they did in the middle ages.
Computer Geek, I share your concern for the welfare of the planet. I inherited deeply felt beliefs about conservation and frugality from my grandparents and parents, and a tradition of recycling that goes back generations. My problem with global warming theory is that it has nothing to do with saving the planet: the planet naturally warms and cools, and we adapt to that. This is nothing more than a new tax and a huge new revenue stream to the government. Cap and Trade legislation iscurrently estimated to add $4,000 per year to the cost of living of the poorest Americans due to increased energy costs. The "Carbon Tax" will simply be added to your electric bill, your gas bill, and to the cost of everything you buy. We are going to cripple our economy to have absolutely no effect on a problem that does not exist.
And I would suggest that there is a huge difference in the experimental science used to validate the theories you mention, and the observational science that is used to support the sometimes outlandish claims about global warming. Climate scientists cannot even agree on the effect of water vapor on climate, and water vapor is a massively greater "greenhouse gas" than CO2. I would strongly recommend a book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming." Read it, cover to cover, check the references listed, and see if you feel the same way.
Evolution has been proven time and time again. We can directly observe results in fruit flies, as well as other species in a longer timeframe.
Relativity has oodles of direct empirical evidence to prove it. Check out the experiments with atomic clocks and talk to any astrophycisist about gravity lensing.
Newton's theory of gravity is merely a very good approximation. It also has oodles of direct empirical evidence to support it. Relativity is merely a more accurate description.
This is exactly what the problem is... ignorant, uneducated, and highly opinionated people that dont realize there is far, far more science going on in the world than what they read about on Huffpost "Green" section.
The point where you think you know everything, is the point where you know nothing.
Put solar panels on your house and a wind generator in your yard and eliminate the corporations from the utilities.
Be the Change you want to see and stop waiting for our corrupt gov't to do something.
The Climate Change deniers are like the Council for Tobacco Research scientists who would trot out their studies at every chance to prove that smoking and cancer had nothing to do with each other.
Many people don't remember that you used to be able to smoke in theaters, buses, airplanes, trains and when anyone tried to create legislation to forbid smoking in those areas the Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute and the Tobacco lobbyists would make sure to derail the legislation.
It's the same now with climate change. Instead of working together to fix things, they trot out the "Tobacco Institute scientists" and cloud the issue with whether everyone believes in Climate Change.
Not everyone believes the earth is round, that there was a moon landing or in organ transplants. But we don't kowtow to those people when we talk about the earth's circumference, the space program or surgical training. Why we kowtow to the deniers of climate change is beyond me.
If you remember smoking in theaters, as I do, you may also remember the great Ice Age scare of the '70's. It is the questionable use of junk science that makes me dubious. I don't understand why supporters of climate change are so afraid of dissent that they attack anyone who voices doubt by lumping them with people who hold the kind of weird ideas you cite. Science is supposedly founded on the concept of constant testing of an hypothesis, which is why the idea of "consensus" of opinion as producing truth is so odd to me. There was once a "consensus" of opinion that the earth was flat. Debate was over. That's the kind of attitude the climate change proponents are demonstrating.
Actually for every far right-wing nut out there, the "first step is admitting you have a problem."
Its funny that you have to "deny" a false accusation.
Rep. Lowey:
Carbon Dioxide is 0.00038 of our atmosphere. It is a TRACE GAS. If global warming is occuring, water vapor is far more important in that process as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Will Congress next propose to regulate water vapor? Legislate the cloud formations? That's how silly this entire debate is, and you are willing to crush our economy under horrendous cap and trade taxes, yes, taxes, simply to support massive government. I beg you to educate yourself about this fraud. Read some of the writings of the increasing number of scientists who strenuously refute this nonsense. You owe it to your country and your constiutents not to blindly follow Al Gore off the cliff.
The unwillingness of the true believers in AGW to confront the real world is truly staggering.
Please Rep Lowey check the facts for yourself . I challenge you to answer the following points here on this thread.The best indication of global temperature trends is the Hadley Centre global SST data base. Anybody reading this can check for themselves - Google - Hadley Cru and scroll down to the SST global data.It shows the following:
1. The earth has been cooling since 2003.
2. The warmest year was 1998.
3.2008 was cooler than 1997 - 11 years with CO2 rising 6% and no net warming in contradiction to The IPCC models and Al Gores fearmongering predictions.
The geological record shows that the sun is the main climate driver - check the C14 and Be10 record. - Anthropogenic CO2 plays only a minor role in global temperature trends.
Solar studies and data - in particular the non development of Solar cycle 24 suggest that we may be entering a 30 year cooling phase - either a Dalton or even Maunder minimum. A similar cooling trend is also suggested by the PDO.
CO2 is the essential plant food - not a pollutant .If the suggested cooling trend appears we would need more CO2 not less in order to help maintain food crop production on a cooler planet.
As to Lowy's point three - it is total nonsense - Even if the USA shut down the economy completely the ensuing temperature drop would be
somehow missing at the end ofthe above -- hardly detectable from the background noise.
The carbon dioxide is going to act as a catalyst and cause a reverse sublimation. The glaciers will grow and everything will cool off. The real problem will be glaciers marching down to New York and freezing credit in the banks.
As one of your constituents, I am surprised that your big concern seems to be with encouraging some unknown legislative solution to climate change (global warming is so 90's). Although environmental issues are of great concern to me, I am appalled by the criminal acts perpertrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. Where was your leadership when our 4th amendment rights were being gutted? The illegal policitization of the justice department, among others? Where is your leadership now in getting a special prosecutor appointed to investigate those who authorized torture? Where were you when it was obvious Bush had committed so many crimes his impeachment was imperative? What is your plan to hold the international war criminals and felons accountable?
Congress legislating the solution to global warming is funny to the point of being absurd.
This article is proof that the squirrels are smarter than the voters in Ms. Lowey's district.
Nita , none of your three points has credibilit
Regardless of whether global warming IS or ISN'T man made------
Wouldn't it be a GOOD thing for America to get off of foreign oil and be able to produce renewable energy here in our own country???????
I think most Americans would agree that not having to import ridiculous amounts of oil from countries like Saudi Arabia would be a step in the right direction.
Don't you??
We import most of our oil from Canada and Mexico.
I read a previous article on HuffPo about a Spanish Company building solar farms having trouble getting water for their project. How is this making us "energy independent"?
Put solar panels on your house and a wind generator in your yard and eliminate the corporations from the utilities.
Yes, Magen, I agree. So let's drill the contintental shelf and ANWR and start building nuclear reactors.
Renewable energy will never be anything more than a supplement. Look at the data on wind and solar. It's not reliable enough to power the grid. If we really want to get off foreign oil, why aren't we using our own?
Are you asking yourself or the reader?
There are pros and cons to "getting off foreign oil". As CH pointed out, we get a lot of our oil from Canada and Mexico. It is still quite economically feasable. The huge price increase that we saw was due to market manipulation by futures traders trying to get out of the housing bubble, not by any sort of supply issue.
All a person has to do is change their perspective. As long as "foreign" oil contributes to the world economy, instead of detracting from it, then I really don't see a problem with it. "Foreign" oil isn't some self contained separate economic entity. Lots of global jobs are a result of it. Sure, some of the high end wealth from it might need spreading around more, but thats just typical greed, and thats not exclusive to oil.
We really do have a global economy these days, and the decisions we make have a far greater impact than you might imagine. Something that may produce more jobs in the US energy sector may take away far more jobs in other sectors in the US, as well as the world. This is a huge balancing act, and its not easy. Do yourself a favor and understand that the decisions you make today might easily be critized as being bad ones, 20 or 30 years from now. So choose, but choose wisely, not hastily.
Point 1:
http://www
Point 2:
http://www
Your third point is outside my purview, but if the first two are any indication, I would assume you are wrong about that as well.
am i from another planet or is she just stupid? has anyone ever heard of the "medievil warm period"? or the "little ice" that followed it? how about pole shift? or changes in the magnetosphere? does anyone have an explanation that if man is causing the earth to warm we must be leaking to the other planets because every planet in this system is warming up according to NASA. wake up sheeple, why dont you search out the truth rather than get your talking points those that are politically motivated. i am an ardent supporter of being good stewards of what we have and i live what i preach, raising my own food smarter technology and such, but dont be sold something just because its cool, so is meth but look where thats got you. dont trust your future to someone with just a 120 iq. they may not be able to truly understand the complexities of the situation or deliberate the consequences of their actions. who would you rather trust your life with a charmer with an iq of 120 or sloppy buggar who tops out with a 140iq. that 20 points might just save your life.
The indicators of a "dogma", is the need for lockstep thinking, and the need to personally attack those with an opposing opinion. If one wants to truly understand the "possible source" of global warming, one should start with Natural Laws. And even then, since our understanding of these Laws tend to evolve overtime, we must recognize that our conclusions will always be in a state of flux. Because a universe without beginning, or end (just cycles) cannot be fully explained, though science, and religion are still fooling themselves, and other people into believing that it can be explained! Nevertheless, all things being equal, though not "perceived equally", one should reference Newton's first, and third laws of motion, coupled with Einstein's E=MC2(squa
A bigger point as it relates to general gobal polution, is that if Nature does not provide our basic elements in contaminated form, why should we accept contamination as just part of "doing business"?
The truth of a thing lies only in its pursuit, not in its attainment.
http://www
Start reading. Report back to us when you are done.
why would you point to a panel of non elected individuals seated by the most corrupt body on earth? of course we need a cleaner planet. who is arguing that? people for the ethical treatment of rubbish? leave something better than you found it. but the earth warms and cools and does lots of things that we cannot control. these are all processes that the planet uses to regulate itself. hurricanes get larger when the water is warmer BUT they are a mechanism of cooling, hmmmm. the planet warms and glaciers melt and cool the planets oceans, processes. that un stuff is all nice and fuzzy for al goreverra but i am a free thinker and rely on reason not propoganda for my argument. true science should not fear challenges in the end it only reinforces the truth.
Yes I have heard of the evil warm period and the little ice. But I don't know what all the excitement is about. The carbon dioxide is going to act as a catalyst and cause a reverse sublimation. The glaciers will grow and everything will cool off. The real problem will be glaciers marching down to New York and freezing credit in the banks.
A good start, perhaps, Rep. Lowey. The question is, when will you submit a bill that makes true point three?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
