We are beginning a new year, and the silence in Congress is still deafening. Will there ever be a debate about what should be done to deal with climate change?
Oh, you don't "believe" in it? If you do not, please, suspend that belief system for just a few minutes and take a look at what the major scientific organizations in this country say. Go to their webpages. Examine the mountain of evidence that has convinced 97 to 98 percent of climate researchers that climate change is a stark reality, and that human behavior has been a contributing factor to it.
NASA: The startling timeline chart on the first page leads you directly into a summary of why the evidence for rapid climate change is compelling. There are extensive sections documenting sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme events and ocean acidification.
National Academy of Sciences: There are more than forty reports on this web page, each of them supporting the Academy's conclusion that "climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems."
The American Association for the Advancement of Science: The world's largest general-scientific society also offers more than forty reports on climate change on its web site. AAAS sums them up by "reaffirming the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway and it is a growing threat to society."
The American Chemical Society says, "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for -- and in many cases is already affecting -- a broad range of human and natural systems."
The American Geophysical Union says:
Human responsibility for most of the well-documented increase in global average temperatures over the last half century is well established. Further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate changes that can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations.
The American Institute of Physics, says:
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
The Geological Society of America says:
GSA concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science, the National Research Council, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.
Even the American Medical Association says, "scientific evidence shows that the world's climate is changing and that the results have public health consequences."
I could list hundreds more. Virtually every reputable organization of scientists in the world has reached the same basic conclusion. Climate change is real and poses a threat to every living thing on the earth. To not take climate change seriously, you must somehow believe there is a gigantic international conspiracy involving the world's top scientists, all of whom have agreed to distort their data. Come on. I realize that people on both sides of the political spectrum can twist themselves into pretzels to reach an ideological result, but that's way beyond improbable. I believe that scientists, as they have down through history, are basing their conclusions on unbiased scientific inquiry. The debate we need now is not about whether climate change is a reality. It is. The massive and complex problems it poses are among the most difficult human beings have ever faced. Hopefully, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, 2012 will be the year our leaders finally listen to the scientific community and begin to fashion solutions to protect the world we will leave them.
This piece first appeared in the "Wilmington News Journal."
I remember when I was a teenager I often found myself walking past a store that sold the old "Heavy Metal" illustrated books (They were far too exquisitely drawn to be called comics). I was on my own in those days and would often buy a copy on laundry day, or more accurately "laundry night". That was the late night after work when I loaded my stuff into a big duffel bag and walked a long ways to this crazy laundromat that was always empty. I never saw anyone else there. It was just me, a few coin operated machines, and a little folding table. The machines were set slow to use up maximum time and coinage, but I could sit there for what seemed like hours just soaking up the pure joy of the glossy artwork.
e.g. along these lines: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2010/russianheatwave/warming_detection.html
I have read that Kyoto type restrictions would even theoretically delay 2100 warming until 2105.
Is that reasonable ?
Is that reasonable?
no its not. But strawmen aren't designed to be reasonable, so at least its understandable.
Your article stops short:
-- you call on our leaders to "fashion solutions", rather than specify what the obvious solutions entail: based on the references you provide yourself, you still fail to call for a reduction/ban on GREENHOUSE GAS / FOSSIL FUEL emissions.
It's almost part of the problem, now, to say 'let's do something' without getting to the difficult, yet necessary steps in changing our energy consumption methods. Meanwhile, we remain at the mercy of the globally expanding fossil fuel industries who are employing huge Tar Sands and off-shore drilling projects under our nose.
We know what the solutions entail - and need leaders like you to say it:
No more fossil fuel/ghg emission projects, period. No new off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. No huge pipelines in Russia, Canada - or Nebraska. No fracking - the methane it releases is an even more potent short-term GHG than oil.
Get specific, Mr. Kaufman. Take a stand against fossil fuels and GHG methods.
Become aligned with groups such as 350.org, the Sierra Club, or waterdefense.org? In other words -- really take a stand.
Stand publicly, Mr. Kaufman, with the likes of Robert Redford, Bill McKibben, Desmond Tutu, Naomi Klein, or any of the dozens of Nobel laureates and scientists who have stepped up and spoken out publicly against new fossil fuel/GHG projects.
THAT would be an action of substance.
Climate hawks have made a mistake by allowing to the deniers to frame this debate as a choice between our modern lifestyle and "living in caves". Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you could cut your heating bills 50% with inexpensive solar and wind technology, why wouldn't you want to? Somebody?
And if you could cut your heating bills 50%, why not go all the way and try to get as close to 100% as you can? Anybody?
Where is the sacrifice in doing something like that?
Maybe the problem is just lack of imagination and brain washing by petroleum influenced right wing media. FOX is at least 7% Saudi Arabian owned. Deal with it.
This year looks like more of the same Bad Weather heading our way. We broke earth's thermostat with all of the emissions (especially from China where there are NO regulations on air pollution).
And as rightwingers are fond of saying nothing we do now will convince Chindia to rein in their emissions, the 1% (politburo) in those countries are saying the same thing about us. Which is exactly where 'lowest common denominator' capitalism takes you: in a race to the bottom.
From the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review (2010):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.
Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.
While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
Reality denial: it's not a river in Egypt.
Meanwhile, it inexorably continues to warm. Have you noticed any extreme weather around the world the past two years?
Oh dear. Not again.
10 $$$ trillion inflation adjusted Defense Dollars to secure the MIDEAST oil and world supplies over 120 years,Fighting endless oil wars(and another being threatened!!) ,millons upon millions dead and maimed,9-11,,Homeland Security Dept..,loss of freedom,Potential catastrophic climate warming predicted by a huge majority of scientists ,, I`d love to see those costs added to a gallon of gas Yet what concerns so many is Relative molecules of Govt. Money to solar startups meant to alleviate this mess..?? We can get the economy going while going green,,There`s really only two big roadblocks,,,Energy Money and stupidity
Makes that pipeline look cheap now doesn't it?
Alternative energies are hugely subsidized.
And it improves lives.
Or is it your plan that we should just wait for oil and gas to run out, and not worry at all about the fact that we're still using 100-300 year old technology to run our world?
Source: “2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume”, WMO news release, Nov 29, 2011
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_935_en.html
It is also very important that we acknowledge the present warming was accurately predicted by climate scientists over 30 years ago.