RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: More on Global Warming

Posted by: Madman
- Donor [398591212] Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 11:22

Just doodling here ... ran across this apocalyptic paragraph, detailing what the 20th century warming might have been responsible for:

A diverse array of evidence points to a warming of global surface air temperatures. Instrumental records from land stations and ships indicate that global mean surface air temperature warmed by about 0.4–0.8°C (0.7–1.5°F) during the 20th century. The warming trend is spatially widespread and is consistent with the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of ice on rivers and lakes, the accelerated rate of rise of sea level during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years, and the increase in upper-air water vapor and rainfall rates over most regions. A lengthening of the growing season also has been documented in many areas, along with an earlier plant flowering season and earlier arrival and breeding of migratory birds. Some species of plants, insects, birds, and fish have shifted towards higher latitudes and higher elevations. The ocean, which represents the largest reservoir of heat in the climate system, has warmed by about 0.05°C (0.09°F) averaged over the layer extending from the surface down to 10,000 feet, since the 1950s

Source? NAS study

And again ...

Although warming at Earth's surface has been quite pronounced during the past few decades, satellite measurements beginning in 1979 indicate relatively little warming of air temperature in the troposphere. The committee concurs with the findings of a recent National Research Council report, 1 which concluded that the observed difference between surface and tropospheric temperature trends during the past 20 years is probably real, as well as its cautionary statement to the effect that temperature trends based on such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end points, are not necessarily indicative of the long-term behavior of the climate system. The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been as different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere.

Just a couple of quotes. All in all, there is clear scientific consensus that the earth is warming. Er, no. There is clear scientific consensus that the earth has warmed in its immediate history and that there is nothing observed to indicate that it is still not continuing to warm.

But I think it's an interesting academic debate to follow. Every generation of scientists gets led down egregiously wrong paths of speculation and research. Which of the currently accepted scientific positions are we wrong about? Global warming as a potentially catastrophic seems like it could easily be one of them.

Or maybe not. Maybe our children will live in a world 3 degree Celsius warmer than I did while growing up. Actually, that might be pretty likely, since I grew up at the end of the world's 30 year cooling trend in the middle of the 20th century.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
431Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 02856618
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 19:19
RE: 428

As I said earlier, only oil/mining industry funded folks believe that stuff: Jag's source's funding
432Perm Dude
      ID: 3844717
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 19:20
Scientific concensus is, indeed, forming, despite the Administration's attempts to politicize science.
433Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 19:26
OMG - Did someone really say they think climate change on Mars could be traced to human activity on earth?

And you guys are still feeding the kitty?
434Jag
      ID: 14849321
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 19:26
Astade had an excellent video on post 326, but the link is broken, I will try to find another. It was the best documentary on the Global Warming Hoax, that I have seen.
435katietx
      ID: 243562819
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 19:29
LOL MBJ, he had a momentary lapse of intelligence...I corrected him. He's been duly smacked for that one...trust me. ;-)
436Pancho Villa
      ID: 42231410
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 19:37
Does Jag even realize that Balrog just handed him his lunch?
437Perm Dude
      ID: 3844717
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 19:40
No, PV. I don't think facts like that are of much interest. It is, after all, not about coming to some sort of consensus, but in attacking the left. That's all one is left with, sometimes, when the facts just don't seem to be there.

I'm sure Jag is going to start posting about the people who think AIDS is not caused by HIV, now, because all those doctors are just looking to get grant money.
439Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 19:43
Here you go Matt.

I'm sorry but I guess I need further explanation. Your excerpts do not illuminate any charade that I can see.

To be clear, I didn't ask for evidence that lots of money is spent on global warming. I'm aware of that.

You claim to have shown that "the amount of Greenhouse gas produced by America fossil fuel is too small to have any bearing on the climate" (or something like that - I think). I've extended the benefit of doubt for you on this.

But for this information to expose any "charade", I'm expecting you to show that some great amount of money is spent on the idea that current American output is to blame for global warming.

So far you have not shown a any logical discrepency between the information in post 403 and the expenditures described in post 428.

I don't understand why I have asked for this explanation 5 times and still have not received a simle explanation that makes any sense. I don't believe I'm being at all unreasonable.
440Jag
      ID: 14849321
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 19:59
I based my opinion from my own research. I posted the numbers, if you believe that the .000whatever increase in Greenhouse Effect gas that America has added to the atmosphere is changing the climate, then so be it. I would like to see a link where it shows some tests where the relatively minimal amount of GH Effect gas we have added to atmosphere could affect a model.
441Perm Dude
      ID: 3844717
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 20:01
I am genuinely baffled by your reference to "Greenhouse Effect gas."

It sounds suspiciously like the "gay gene."

pd
442Jag
      ID: 14849321
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 20:05
Mith, I believe you want a link proving that all the scientists supporting Global Warming are being bought out. There is no DNA evidence, but there is opinion and the link I provided by the MIT scientist addresses it.
443Jag
      ID: 14849321
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 20:10
I do that to emphasize the percentage increase of CO2 is not the percentage increase of GH Effect gas, which is chiefly water vapor
444Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 20:14
if you believe that the .000whatever increase in Greenhouse Effect gas that America has added to the atmosphere is changing the climate, then so be it.

Am I being cryptic? I don't think so. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that the information you presented is true.

What I'm asking you to show is how this counters the arguments of any major anti-global warming movement.

Personally, I've never seen a claim that America's current output of CO2 is solely or primarily responsible for consequential climate change. In order for your data to prove anything, the anti-global warming movement must hinge on that false idea.

I'm not asking for anything beyond maybe 4th grade level logic.
445Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 02856618
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 20:48
Again, RE: 428

Gee whizzy! $2B for global warming research! How can Exxon, with it's $36B profit possibly be expected to get a fair hearing. Oh and that's after they discounted funding the George C. Marshall Institute and other anti-human-caused "research" groups. Those other less-profitable energy firms must be even more distraught.
446Jag
      ID: 14849321
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 21:13
Mith, most of the sites I read on man-made Global Warming, don't go into specifics, they talk as if it is an already a proven fact and would rather show pictures of the polar ice caps melting, than give scientific reasoning.
447Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 21:49
Jag I know how you resent requests that you cite your sources and up to this point I've catered to you by simply accepting your information as reliable.

But simple logic dictates that you can't expose any part of the movement as fraudulent if you can't show that anyone actually makes the claims that you've disproved.

Its time you either show us where the movement actually espouses the claim that current American CO2 output is the culprit of consequential climate change or admit that the argument we wasted all this time on today doesn't amount to beans.



I'll also add that if you haven't seen any or much scientific data and analysis from the anti-global warming movement, you've clearly read the wrong 40 web pages.

Personally, I have no aversion to sharing internet sources. As I've said I'm not a climatologist schooled in any related field or even well researched so I won't weigh in on the value of any of the following - or any counter arguments out there. But just to show you that there is no shortage of scientific data used to support global warming theories:

IPCC: The Physical Basis of Climate Change

Pew Center: The Science of Climate Change: Global and U.S. Perspectives

Woods Hole Research Center: The Warming of the Earth A beginner's guide to understanding the issue of global warming

The Global Warming Research Program

Research Matters: Articles concerning the overall warming of the Earth's climate, its causes, and the impact of this temperature shift on the Earth's inhabitants

This stuff is not hard to find.
448Jag
      ID: 14849321
      Tue, May 01, 2007, 23:30
Mith, when I researched the GHE, I looked for more text book type information, as not to get a bias from either side. So many times the general scientific theory is proven wrong. Just 40 years ago the majority thought global cooling was the future. The one dissident was a Swedish Scientist that predicted the GHE.

The few scientist that dare doubt man-made Global Warming have been ostricized from the scientific community. Some of the info I am citing is from Astrade's video link, so I dont have the exact link to that, but it was echoed by the MIT scientist in the another post.

As far as America being blamed for Global Warming, that is just a general feel I perceive from listening to the media.
449Boxman
      ID: 211139621
      Wed, May 02, 2007, 06:26
All this talk is strictly academic because if Tree is right and we are responsible for global warming on Mars and if there is inteligent life on Mars, we're going to have an interplanetary war on our hands. Then where are you gonna go?

450Tree
      ID: 2542524
      Wed, May 02, 2007, 06:30
MAH!!!! MAHHHHHHHHH!!! MAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
451Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 02, 2007, 06:47
As far as America being blamed for Global Warming, that is just a general feel I perceive from listening to the media.

You sure wasted an awful lot of time yesterday on a misguided general feel. Understand why people ask or sources now? To this point you accomplished exactly nothing in this thread.
452Pancho Villa
      ID: 42231410
      Sun, May 06, 2007, 23:57
#394

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

A more likely explanation is that Mars' irregular rotation around the sun is the cause for its climate fluctuations.


The orbit of Mars
453Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Mon, May 07, 2007, 19:53
Balrog
Dude
ID: 02856618
Tue, May 01, 2007, 18:46

Federal funding is largely controlled by the White House appointed and supervised Cabinet Secretaries. Who gets what grant money is completely controlled by their underlings, not Congress or anyone else. Those underlings get promoted because they please their bosses. The White House clearly doesn't like global warming research that points to human cause. Pray tell, why would the administration which is anti-human-caused give extra big bucks to people who disagree with them? Why would the federal scientists push results that make their patrons angry? If the money is being preferentially handed out, you'd think that the weasel researchers would be cashing in big time with this administration.


Expecting Bush to be a reliable bulwark against the globalist enabling that is the global warming manufactured hysteria...

...is like expecting neo-con Bush to continue the conservative Reagan revolution...

...is like expecting a drug trade dynasty [Bush] going back to the opium war days to plug the holes in the border...

...is like expecting the Bush family that financed Hitler's rise to power to save Terri Schiavo or America's case law from euthanazia...

...is like expecting 'thousand points of light' Bush to buck the agenda of the last Bilderburger meeting...

Like any politician he will make left handed shows of support and whisper contradictory words of support in every direction but when push comes to shove the results are always the same.
454sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, May 07, 2007, 23:15
except that there was no saving Terri Schiavo, despite your continuing to beat that dead horse, because Terri Schiavo was already gone.
455Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Tue, May 08, 2007, 22:26
God help anyone depending on your mercy.
456sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Wed, May 09, 2007, 00:21
from what I've seen, you have no mercy to show. Not to other christians, not to those whose lifestyle you claim was chosen as an abomination, not to those of a differing faith...no baldy, mercy is a word you barely have any right even using.
457Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Wed, May 09, 2007, 04:52
And yet I get up early, get dressed up, knock on their doors, and try and show them how to escape what's coming.



458sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Wed, May 09, 2007, 08:13
IMHO, that isnt mercy...its an intrusion.
459katietx
      ID: 11430613
      Wed, May 09, 2007, 08:48
no baldy, mercy is a word you barely have any right even using

Surprisingly, those you think don't have mercy end up being the ones who show the most mercy and insight...they can nail the problem without any of the information.
460Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 09, 2007, 10:55
Staney Crouch
461Baldwin
      ID: 14358177
      Wed, May 09, 2007, 16:37
Sarge

Good Samaritans may seem like intruders while you lie there hungover in your hammock...

...until you realize your house actually is burning down.

You think this is easy?
462Wilmer McLean
      ID: 21453121
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 04:20
Canadian controversy: How do polar bears fare? (Christian Science Monitor)

May, 3, 2007

Despite global warming, an ongoing study says polar bear populations are rising in the country's eastern Arctic region.

Toronto - Polar bears are the poster animals of global warming. The image of a polar bear floating on an ice floe is one of the most dramatic visual statements in the fight against rising temperatures in the Arctic.

But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s.

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a ... lot more bears," biologist Mitchell Taylor told the Nunatsiaq News of Iqaluit in the Arctic territory of Nunavut. Earlier, in a long telephone conversation, Dr. Taylor explained his conviction that threats to polar bears from global warming are exaggerated and that their numbers are increasing. He has studied the animals for the Nunavut government for two decades.

Updates from the study by Taylor and his team have received significant media coverage in Canada, shaking the image of the polar bear as endangered.

"I don't think there is any question polar bears are threatened by global warming," responds Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. He spoke by phone from Tuktoyaktuk in Canada's Northwest Territories 1,800 miles to the west of Davis Strait.

This past weekend, the midday temperature was just 6 degrees F. on the shore of the Arctic Ocean there. Daylight now lasts 18 hours, from 6 a.m. until just before midnight.

Perfect conditions for polar bear hunting. But Professor Derocher and a graduate student, Seth Cherry, are shooting the animals with tranquilizer darts and fitting them with radio transmitters. It's part of a long-term effort to figure out whether the huge carnivores – with the Kodiak bear, the largest on the planet – are being hurt by global warming.

The study by Taylor and his team has received widespread media coverage in Canada, shaking the image of the polar bear as endangered. There are even questions about the famous photograph of a polar bear adrift on what looks like an isolated and melting ice floe. Even scientists who firmly believe that the bears are under threat from climate change say the picture doesn't tell the whole truth.

...

...Of the 13 polar bear populations in Canada, at least two are in decline, Derocher says. The number of polar bears along the western edge of Hudson Bay, for example, has fallen by 22 percent over the last decade.

...

...Canada hosts two-thirds of the world's estimated 25,000 polar bears.

...
463sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 13:27
<---doesnt have a hammock and house is brick. It isnt on fire.
464Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 14:06
Even the most ardent opponents of global warming science cannot deny polar bear habitats are shrinking. If the the bears are repopulating I tend to think it is because of human efforts to preserve them, not any natural phenomena.
465Jag
      ID: 14849321
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 15:01
I know my life and many others are much richer with the increase polar bear population, in fact polar bears and caribou are my favorites animals and I am glad we are more dependent on foriegn oil and help put money in terrorists pockets because it may or may not disturb a freakin' caribou by drilling in Alaska.
466Perm Dude
      ID: 37421129
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 15:20
You are so 1960's Republican, Jag. Perhaps you forgot about all the drilling there currently is in Alaska.

And maybe it escaped you in your reactionary way, but the article in question is about Canada.
467Jag
      ID: 14849321
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 16:42
PD, you know I am talking about the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. To not be drilling for oil there is the height of idiocy.
468sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 17:28
How much oil is there Jag? If the oil field were drilled and pumped dry...how many days would it supply us with oil? IIRC, some estimates go so fas as to suggest it could be as much as a weeks worth of US consumption.

Oh yea...THAT would make a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference. Additional sources will not solve the dilemma. Will barely delay the inevitable. So apparently, personal responsibility ends when it comes to driving the gas guzzling vehicle of choice. Or am I totally misinterpreting your intent?
469Jag
      ID: 14849321
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 17:44
I have seen varying reports of the amount of oil.

Telling people not to drive gas guzzlers is a typical Liberal plan, one that sounds good, but is completely void of reality. Instead of trying to convince everyone in America to think like the half-brain Left, why not just try to get a few cities to invest in Nuclear power plants.
470Pancho Villa
      ID: 42231410
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 17:51
Nuclear power plants have nothing to do with gas-guzzling vehicles, something even the mentally challenged understand.

What's idiocy is thinking drilling in ANWR is a panacea for this country's energy consumption, or will in any way affect our need for foreign oil.

It will only set precedent that any federally protected land will be up for grabs for drilling or other extraction industry.
471Perm Dude
      ID: 37421129
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 17:55
Why choose? You make it like there is an either/or: Either agree with me completely, or suffer your lame brain Left plan.

I have seen no estimate of oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge which is not dwarfed by Mideast oil. None. You keep grasping at straws to prop up an oil and gas industry without realizing that your time is better spent researching alternative energies and fuels.

BTW, I know facts are, at best, annoying to you, but perhaps you should have taken a few minutes to see where, exactly, nuclear power plants are already located.



Now, for fun, take a look at which of those states are considered "blue" states:

472sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 18:08
Nuclear power plants have nothing to do with gas-guzzling vehicles, something even the mentally challenged understand.

As evidenced by #469...I am tempted to challenge the accuracy of your assertion PV.
473Jag
      ID: 14849321
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 18:10
I am all for alternative energy, unforunately the far Right doesn't care enough and the Left are too incompetent at anything, but propaganda, to get anything done.
474sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sat, May 12, 2007, 22:24
what propaganda? Posts 470 and 471 are pure facts.
475Wilmer McLean
      ID: 32461414
      Tue, May 15, 2007, 18:44
RE: 394 Mars is warming.

Neptune: infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004.



Figure 1 (a) represents the corrected visible light from Neptune from 1950 to 2006; (b) shows the temperature anomalies of the Earth; (c) shows the total solar irradiance as a percent variation by year; (d) shows the ultraviolet emission from the Sun (Source: Hammel and Lockwood (2007)).

What would seem so simple statistically is complicated by the degrees of freedom in the various time series which is related to the serial correlation in the data (e.g., next year’s value is highly dependent on this year’s value). Nonetheless, they find that the correlation coefficient between solar irradiance and Neptune’s brightness is near 0.90 (1.00 is perfect). The same relationship is found between the Earth’s temperature anomalies and the solar output. Hammel and Lockwood note “In other words, the Earth temperature values are as well correlated with solar irradiance (r = 0.89) as they are with Neptune’s blue brightness (|r| > 0.90), assuming a 10-year lag of the Neptune values.” The temporal lag is needed to account for the large mass of Neptune that would require years to adjust to any changes in solar output.

Hammel and Lockwood conclude that “In summary, if Neptune’s atmosphere is indeed responding to some variation in solar activity in a manner similar to that of the Earth albeit with a temporal lag” then “Neptune may provide an independent (and extraterrestrial) locale for studies of solar effects on planetary atmospheres.”

476J-Bar
      ID: 25911418
      Sun, May 20, 2007, 23:36
Damn those people on Neptune
477walk
      ID: 2530286
      Sun, Jul 01, 2007, 09:47
July 1, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Moving Beyond Kyoto
By AL GORE
Nashville


WE — the human species — have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.

Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don’t stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.

In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground — mainly in the form of coal and oil — and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth’s atmosphere.

The concentrations of CO2 — having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years — have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.

As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.

Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north polar ice cap — which helps the planet cool itself — is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.

This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.

On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, “In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”

We — all of us — now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.

Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.

As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.

This threat also requires us, in Reagan’s phrase, to unite in recognition of our common bond.

Next Saturday, on all seven continents, the Live Earth concert will ask for the attention of humankind to begin a three-year campaign to make everyone on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate crisis in time to avoid catastrophe. Individuals must be a part of the solution. In the words of Buckminster Fuller, “If the success or failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and what I do, how would I be? What would I do?”

Live Earth will offer an answer to this question by asking everyone who attends or listens to the concerts to sign a personal pledge to take specific steps to combat climate change. (More details about the pledge are available at algore.com.)

But individual action will also have to shape and drive government action. Here Americans have a special responsibility. Throughout most of our short history, the United States and the American people have provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon — all were the result of American leadership.

Once again, Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success.

To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.

This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States that it probably cannot be ratified here — much in the way the Carter administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.

Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 — and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.

If by the beginning of 2009, the United States already has in place a domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution, I have no doubt that when we give industry a goal and the tools and flexibility to sharply reduce carbon emissions, we can complete and ratify a new treaty quickly. It is, after all, a planetary emergency.

A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course; countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.

There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product — countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis — really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?

Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their future — indeed, the future of all human civilization — is hanging in the balance. They deserve better than a government that censors the best scientific evidence and harasses honest scientists who try to warn us about looming catastrophe. They deserve better than politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced — even as the danger bears down on us.

We should focus instead on the opportunities that are part of this challenge. Certainly, there will be new jobs and new profits as corporations move aggressively to capture the enormous economic opportunities offered by a clean energy future.

But there’s something even more precious to be gained if we do the right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience what few generations in history have had the privilege of experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.

Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection. He is the author, most recently, of “The Assault on Reason.”
478Baldwin
      ID: 125312919
      Sun, Jul 01, 2007, 20:50
we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage

It would be very illuminating to track exactly how they decided on the figure ten years. You can expect it was a careful balance between propaganda effectiveness and the likelihood of being held accountable for the accuracy of the prediction in the future.
479Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jul 01, 2007, 21:30
You can expect it was a careful balance between propaganda effectiveness and the likelihood of being held accountable for the accuracy of the prediction in the future.

If that isn't the no-duh statement of the year. This is true of practically every prepared statement any politician ever makes.
480Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 17:15
Bump for Bili
481Seattle Zen
      ID: 2115622
      Fri, Feb 06, 2009, 23:15
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days11
Last 30 days55
Since Mar 1, 200755561827