Please see my msg from 1/17 above --

However, think about it...

IF those who do understand the problem - those meeting at Kyoto and Bali -- really wanted the people of Montana to get it, don't you think that would happen in a few minutes flat????

Of course it would --

Our problems aren't with the ignorant few; our problems are with the elite who don't want to change the way things are done.

Note this misleading paragraphg in the article, showing how truly mealy-mouthed the NY Times is:

"People on Main Street here were divided over the cancellation. Melody Martinsen, the editor of The Choteau Acantha, a local weekly, said that while she rarely received letters to the editor, "this week I have nine and seven are on the subject, and they are all chastising the school board.""

7 letters to the editor, ALL chastising the school board.

Where is the "division" in public sentiment on that???

I recently read that about 18% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. (Guess which way most of them vote!)

You certainly can't judge division based on who/what is written to a newspaper. I live near there, and know that this is probably tearing the town up. As ranching slowly moves towards its natural compatriot, environmentalism, the successful GOP insert a division that doesn't really exist. In peoples minds, it does. Steve (I work at the same University at the prof) knows this, and his 5 stages of grief acurately describes what happened in Choteau. Denial and anger. It is a process, and people are getting there. The good thing is that there is division. 10-15 years ago there would have been no division, with practically 100% of the adult population against his talk.

Those that practically hate those that disagree with them might be well served to meet some of these rural folks and not just insult them.

Here is a recent internal memo from a distinguished professional to an organization of experts in the field of coral reefs, pertaining to the effects of global warming and the much more rapid worldwide demise of coral reefs than current governments and institutional projections indicate. Posted here with his permission:

Dr. Thomas Goreau wrote:

To those seriously concerned about climate change and the future of coral reefs:

Climate change has been a minor subject on the coral list server until recently, when a flurry of postings, focusing largely on the merits of different cars rather than impacts on corals, appeared in response to a recent Science article.

According to press reports, this article makes predictions, based on models, that climate change might begin to affect reefs in 50-70 years. This is overly optimistic! In fact we could lose most of what is left in the next extreme hot
year that exceeds 1998, and this could come at any time.

Statistically, based on the Global Coral Reef Alliance database of global coral reef satellite sea surface temperatures since 1982, it is due this year. But we can't be exactly certain because of the noise in the climate system (I published many papers on this with Ray Hayes since 1990, none cited in the Science paper).

The real news is that we have ALREADY passed the tipping point. And that what emerged from Bali was cynical abandonment of coral reefs and countries that depend on them. The oil and coal burners chose to sacrifice reefs because they don't want to be inconvenienced by changing their polluting ways, and they don't care what happens to coral reefs, island nations, low lying coasts, or even
the future of their own children. But they can't say that they weren't warned (about) what was happening. These opinions are based on empirical data, not on models (like the Science paper) that are only general qualitative descriptions of reality.

If this seems like just another outrageous personal opinion, bear in mind that I am the only coral reef scientist with degrees in atmospheric physics and chemistry from MIT, Caltech, and Harvard. As a teenager I wrote computer programs that correctly predicted zonal wind speeds on Saturn decades before space probes confirmed them and was asked to do my PhD writing general circulation models to predict the climatic effects of CO2 increase.

I refused to get back to coral reefs and warm water. I set up the first labs in the Amazon to measure greenhouse gases at high precision, made the first measurements of tropical jungle deforestation effects on atmospheric chemistry and in the 1980s published half a dozen papers on stabilization of atmospheric CO2. When these were ignored, I went back to restoring coral reefs, the most financially unrewarding activity that I know.

Paleoclimatic data clearly shows that the IPCC projections for future climate change have seriously underestimated the sensitivity of temperature and sea level to CO2. The last time in earth history when global temperatures were 1
degree C above today's, sea levels were 7 meters higher than now, and hippopotamuses and crocodiles flourished in London, England.

Because CO2 was then one third lower than today's value, the conditions then greatly UNDERESTIMATE what will happen when temperature and sea level eventually equilibrate with TODAY'S level of CO2, even if we never burn another gram of coal or oil or use natural gas starting immediately.

I showed this in briefings to delegates at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, predicting that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (and the later Kyoto Protocol to FCCC) was so weak that it was guaranteed to kill coral
reefs. I warned that we would lose most corals to heat shock in the next decades if negotiators failed to stop global warming then and there.

I showed that the IPCC had systematically underestimated the impacts for two very simple reasons: 1) the models they use fail to include the vast bulk of the positive feedback mechanisms that the empirical data proves exists in the Earth Climate System, and 2) the time horizon for their predictions was 1 to 2 orders of magnitude shorter than the response time of the system, so they only covered the initial effects, and missed the bulk of the total response.

As Senior Scientific Affairs Officer for global climate change and biodiversity at the United Nations Centre for Science and Technology for Development, I had a lot of input into the draft of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

At that point it was already clear that coral reefs were the most temperature sensitive ecosystem and we had already developed the Goreau-Hayes HotSpot method for predicting the location, timing, and intensity of bleaching from satellite data alone before it could be seen in the field. Unfortunately this was widely denied and ridiculed by our colleagues, who later copied our data-based conclusions word
for word as "common knowledge" without bothering to cite the sources (there is a word for this that I'm too polite to use here).

I personally inserted the words "coral reefs" every place in the original draft UN Framework Convention on Climate Change where they belonged, insisted explicitly on COMPLETE accounting of all greenhouse gas sources and sinks, and added that one of the goals of the convention was to protect Earth's most temperature-sensitive ecosystems.

What the UN sent out to governments was vastly better than what they got back! Governments made scientific nonsense of the treaty by confusing net with gross fluxes, rewarding bogus carbon sinks while ignoring the real ones, failing to
identify the most climatically sensitive ecosystems and requiring that they be monitored for signs of temperature stress, and failing to establlish trigger mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if such stress was in fact shown.

Minutes after the Convention was passed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, I passed out leaflets describing it as a death sentence for coral reefs. I was the only coral reef researcher at the UN Convention on Climate Change in Bali, on the delegation of Jamaica, on the delegation of the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (an Inter-Governmental Organization representing almost all
Caribbean States), as Coordinator of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Partnership in New Technologies for Small Island Developing States, as
President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance, and as Science Advisor to Yayasan Karang Lestari (Foundation for Protected Corals, an Indonesian Non Governmental Organization that runs the world's largest coral reef and fisheries habitat
restoration projects).

My briefings to the 41 member states of the Association
of Small Island States (the island nations of the Pacific, Caribbean, and Indian Ocean) and to the Indonesian Government (the host country and home to the largest and richest coral reefs in the world), also passed out to all of the nearly 200 governments present, pointed out that: 1) the impacts of climate change had been seriously and systematically underestimated, and the threat was much worse and more imminent than recognized, with coral reefs and island nations being the first and worst victims 2) that we could lose most remaining corals in the next extreme hot year, 3) that the EU proposal to allow CO2 to rise to 450 ppm and temperature to rise by 2 degrees C (blocked by the US, Canada, Japan, the Arab oil producing states, China, India, and Russia for their own reasons) was unacceptable to small island developing states because it meant
sacrificing coral reefs, fisheries, and shore protection against rising sea level, 4) that what was needed was to REDUCE atmospheric CO2 by AT LEAST one third BELOW today's levels, and 5) that the technologies to do so were proven
and in hand, but were not being funded or even discussed. These technologies will be covered in detail in a book I am editing on Underutilized Technologies for Sustainable Development and Reversing Global Warming, which will be
published in May 2008 at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.

There is precious little time now left to act, thanks to decades of denial and obfuscation by governments and by many coral reef professionals, long after the heat shock cause of mass coral reef bleaching was thoroughly established by 1990.

What Bali gave us is another two wasted years of talking while temperatures continue to rise without control, and corals and people die from extreme temperature events.
That is why further delay is a capital crime against the environment.

We must ensure that what climate treaties emerge two years from now deal with the real problems, not avoiding them, and promote the real solutions, not fake ones. While this may seem merely academic to those from rich countries, it is a
matter of life and death for the island nations, especially the low lying ones, and for coral reefs.

For more information on the problems and the solutions,
please see: 1) The first New York Times comment on the aftermath of Bali
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/voices-on-bali-and-beyond/ 2) The briefing to island nation delegations
http://www.globalcoral.org/Global%20Warming%20Coral%20Reefs%20and% 20Tropical%20Islands.1.pdf
The latter link may not work in all browsers. If clicking it says that the page can't be found, just copy and paste it into your browser window and it should work. Best wishes, Tom

Thomas J. Goreau, PhD President
Global Coral Reef Alliance
37 Pleasant Street,
Cambridge MA 02139
617-864-4226
goreau@bestweb.net
http://www.globalcoral.org

One may be forgiven for suspecting that the conservatives of Montana won't accept the facts of warming and climate change until the Inland Sea is lapping at the foothills and coral reefs start growing in what was once their hometowns.

You all miss the point. The fact that there is division in Choteau Montana, the fact there are actually people that believe in climate change, is about as drastic a change as George Bush wanting to get out of Iraq. Demonizing those that disagree lends nothing towards common ground, let alone COMMON DREAMS.

mercury - "Demonizing those that disagree lends nothing towards common ground, let alone COMMON DREAMS."

If you were stranded on an island with nothing to eat but coconuts, would you seek *common ground* with people who wanted to cut the coconut trees down?

Let's face it, the world would be better off without the conservatives in Choteau Montana, and progressives should be working against these people, not with them.

Thank you Dr. Thomas J. Goreau for your informative post. As a diver it saddens me to see the reefs disappearing. The reefs were under enough stress already from overuse by divers, boaters and the non-existent enforcement of laws protecting the reefs.

I too wish to thank you, Dr. Goreau. You have hold of a quite serious set of issues. Coral reefs are one of the world's major carbon sinks. The world has more problems as they disappear.

Restoring a coral reef, while it has no financial payoff at all, is an act that shows the public that restoring reefs is important. Sometimes a willingness to sacrifice one's time, energy and money is what moves people to action.

Yet, another American village run by ignorant and arrogant idiots.

Ezeflyer--Thanks for posting that. It appears the marine ecosystem is in much worse condition than I already knew it to be. Dr Lovelock appears to be correct; NO terrestrial life can survive without an intact marine ecosystem--Opps....

That area of Montana isn't going to fare well in the climate change/peak oil world coming soon.

It seems Republicans can't handle science very well. Unless making weapons or some other sort of obscene profit off of the suffering of others is involved.

Truth is often too rough for their delicate egos and pocketbooks, and it must be suppressed.

It is good to see news items about the plight of coral reefs. I have talked about the reef problem for years with lots of people who are very aware, and we spread the word still. I put this onto stumbleupon. And yes, mercury, a divided small town is indeed progress rather than finding a town united in ignorance and denial; I lived in a tiny village at a coast and know how that can be... here is a great,sophisticated web site about coral, hyberbolic space and crochet (of all things): www.theiff.org/reef/index.html

Largely, the problem isn't the ignorant of Montana . . .
and, basically, don't we spend too much time on every issue trying to wake up the few who don't or can't get it?

No, our problem is with those who do understand and who don't want change. How can it be that Detroit continues to turn out cars which get almost no MPG? One might begin to consider that they are involved in an alliance in protecting the oil industry and their profits?

"Who Killed the Electric Car?" ...
We can raise a corporation and replace every gas-guzzlr on the roads now with an electric car probably in 3-5 years!

So, our problems have little to do with the few ignorant among us ---

our problems are with those who profit from the current system and don't want change. They are blocking our way.

Alternative methods of energy have all always been blocked -- and this had nothing to do with the ignorance of the people of Montana.

PS: I also doubt that Cheney/Bush don't get Global Warming and their battle to destroy or disappear information which the public would readily understand from scientific documents suggests this, as well.

This is true of officials in Washington, DC across the board --- of all our election candidates. Of course they know!

We need to nationalize our natural resources ---
nationalize the oil industry and take control back from the few private families who own it.

Yes --- there is pretense about Global Warming ---
because to admit that they know and get it --- but prefer to do nothing about it --- would be an impossible thing to say!!

Mercury

This is so pathetic...

"science education is very important here.""
superintendent of Choteau School District No. 1, Kevin St. John

"Only a handful of students were among the 140 or so people at the evening talk, however, because it coincided with a high school basketball game,"

And this behavior is not unusual. Average Americans do not respect or know about science.

Every student in that high school should have heard a Nobel scientist speak and that should have been school policy.

.................................................

This incident is an argument against democracy. Sometimes there is an elite that is right and should make the decisions.

Imo the world should be working towards better human rights, rather than the US pushing democracy. First people need human rights and those could be given under a number of types of governments.

Mercury says we should not be contemptuous of small town people who blocked an informative talk by a Nobel laureate scientist with so much expertise is climate issues that he wrote the IPCC report--unless it was balanced by someone claiming that the sun revolves around the Earth and Santa Claus in coming. Instead, we should celebrate the fact that now some in the town supported allowing this scientists to speak, which is to say, they support admitting that climate change is real.
But FreeQuark remarks that
If you were stranded on an island with nothing to eat but coconuts, would you seek *common ground* with people who wanted to cut the coconut trees down?
That is exactly the situation here, and with scientists telling us in increasingly shrill tones that we are running out of time to deal with this issue, we can't afford to be thoughtful and patient and tolerant of those who are thoughtless and intolerant and narrowminded. I live in rural WV, and I know how it goes--but even here, I doubt this would have happened. Surely they ought to cancel all science classes in that district, as there must be other areas of controversy. They could use the extra time to raise the students' math scores. There is no controversy in math.

So "some conservative citizens" succeeded at censoring Dr. Running's message. I wonder how these same "conservative citizens" would view "some progressive citizens" succeeding at censoring a right-to-life discussion, or a discussion about prayer in schools, or a discussion about intelligent design. Why won't communities stand up to these regressives?! What are they afraid of? The truth?

I actually know supt. St. John. He is a decent guy. And as a former teacher in small town Montana, I can tell you that if you want to remain employed, DON'T MAKE WAVES! I think that St. John could have surfed this wave out though. I wish that he would have. But hey, it takes an extraordinary amount of balls and an willingness to look for a new job if you have to to take that kind of stand. I know. I did it regarding creationism in a Montana town of 1,000 people. It really DID divide the town. And I now have a new job.

But I must tell you that Montana is not NEARLY this conservative. Here in Great Falls we have waged a helluva battle to stop a coal fired plant. And it looks as if we will succeed. And we are only sixty miles from Choteau.

It's a good bet that global warming will bring unprecedented drought to Montana, and those ranchers will have to move out.

Poetic justice..that..

When someone is givien such a prestigious award and has passed academic exams to be awarded a PhD then high school students should hear that person even if controversial.

After the speech then there should be discussions in small groups in classrooms that go over the issues...pros and cons

Maybe Americans need to learn how to listen to controversy with politeness and how to discuss while listening to what the other person says.

Part of the reason people in America will often NOT discuss politics is the nastiness of the conversation that too often occurs.

I love the quote about how he didn't mean to censor Dr. Running. Well bud, when you cancel someone's speech because there are people who don't want to hear what he's going to say, that's what you are doing. Regardless of what's running through their mind.

Of course, the left is as intolerant and simple-minded as the right. Note the posts on this thread from people who would equally shut down any conservative speaker that didn't agree with what they've decided is the truth, and that argue for a dictatorship of the left that would decide these things for people who don't come to what they've already decided is best for everyone.

Pretty damn typical. Looks like if we ever win in the fight against the right-wing extremists that want to control what we see, hear and think, we'll just have to turn around and be fighting the left-wing extremists that want to control what we see, hear and think. This is the exact same thinking as that of the people who shut down this talk. Their only disagreement is that there's people on this board who think they should be the ones running the police state that tells us what to think.

Looks like those who believe in enlightenment ideals of freedom are going to be busy fighting for them for a long, long time. Even after we beat back the corporate drive to control our lives, we'll still be fighting for freedom, but then against the control-freaks on the left who want to control our lives.

Of course, then they'll be the ones issuing statements about how 'they didn't intend to censor anyone.'

Learn or die.

Seems like that is what the choice is rapidly narrowing down to. Those who want to learn better figure out a way to overcome the obstinate, profit-loving, life-hating, demented fools who are blocking so many better possibilities. I guess that includes overcoming all of DC, the car companies, the oil entities, the bilderburg-types, the shieks, the pricks and princesses, and others who have become blinded by weak, fearful, war-ful, pompous, (evil?), and deluded minds and all the associated insanity.

Perhaps "nature" will send some undeniable messages that enable many to wake-up and consider better ideas. Perhaps this is already happening. Perhaps more and more will start recognizing the wisdom coming from folks such as Dr. Goreau. The longer nothing happens, the harder it gets.

I'm going to do my part. I've already started and everyday I try to learn more myself to optimize my time and effort.

Peace,
Ken

There will be divides.

Just because there is a difference of opinions is no reason to shut down debate. In fact the differences are exactly why there should be debate.

The homework assignment (I would give) would be to write a 300 word essay, half of which will present the pro and half the con of this question:
Is global warming caused by human activity?

No grade would be given to the essay, but corrections to grammar and english usage would be done by teachers. (So students get some feed back and learn from the experience but can express without censorship their own views. Sometimes when writing down opinions it becomes clearer to the writer what he/she thinks)

Alll of these discussions about politics and science are about changing minds and convincing people...and to change minds there must be open discussions.

colleen - I don't think it matters what is the cause of global warming. What matters is what we are witnessing and sensing. It is real. It manifests not just in the environment but also in human relations being that the two are so intricately linked. Things are way out of whack.

Coral reefs are dying. Topsoil is being diminished. Water basins are in decline. Fisheries and forests are being decimated. Carbon is being transferred from earthly long-term storage (oil and coal) to the air and the oceans. The balance of entire long-term ecosystems is jeopardized. Massive human populations don't have their basic needs met, and this is also a feedback that escalates the destruction.

Maybe global warming is caused by humans (I think so), but maybe it is caused by the sun getting hotter. Honestly, what difference does it make? What is happening is happening in front of our very eyes and those currently in positions of influence (particularly in the US of A) remain in chains denying that humanity is on the verge of dying.

Understanding the causes may help find solutions, but the more pressing concern is the WILL to take action - that is what seems to be lacking. The will needs to grow and it needs to grow exponentially. Then understanding and solutions as well as implementation of solutions can take hold and be carried out.

We know that there can be worldwide will for war, so it follows that there can be worldwide will for sustainability. Anyone who blocks this will should be moved out of the way. I hope it can happen peacefully -- in fact, I think it needs to be, and I suppose that is the quandary, because current world leadership seems to be stuck in 19th century ways of thinking. Regardless, more and more, those who are in the way are being identified, and they need to be ostracized and diminished for the sake of the vast preponderance of People who have a better imagination for humanity's future.

OK, I'll get off my high horse.

Peace,
Ken

buffalo ken

There is hardly someone more passionate than I am in my ideas. And I do think we are in for a very nasty time because of global warming and I believe it is caused by human activity.

You are right imo that the will to action is extremely important
But how do you convince others ? by insulting them? by condemning them? or be engaging in discussion?

How do we change the ME? How do we gain more human rights? with war? with military aciton? with schooling? with exchanges of ideas?

I think it must all occur with exchanges of ideas. A military can add some stability but the changes occur with changing people's beliefs.

And I think that the elite, who are blocking the discussion about global warming, (Like Lee Raymond) have not themselves been convinced that global warming is being caused by human activity.

Incidentally I am in the process of moving my life into Canada because I do believe we are in the beginning stages of global warming. If people really believed in a changing climate they would be moving, as I have done. And housing prices in Florida would plummet. But people say one thing and do not act on what they are saying. I'm not sure why that is..because when I say something I act on it.

Anyway schools should be places where there is active debates about ideas imo. This policy of not discussing something because it causes divides is terrible, and very intellectually limiting..but fits it with the denial of reality going on in America.

colleen - as I usually do, I agree with you, but with perhaps one caveat.

In my view, up till now, the so-called elite (or at least the elite power brokers) have been an intentional obstacle based on fatally flawed thinking -- in particular the ill-conceived notion dealing with the bizarre and heinous fallacy of their own perceived superiority (isn't it the beginning of the end of learning when one believes in their own superiority..?). Plus, being that actions speak louder than words, it is hard not to conclude that these power-brokers seem to have no empathy excepting perhaps for their own immediate & like ilk. Funny that they refuse to recognize the basic truth that we are all related. Go back a few thousand years and we all share the same relatives.

Plus I hope you know that I so agree that peaceful exchange of ideas and education are key. Its just to an extent this has already been happening for some time, but these few brokers refuse to learn and little corrective action of substance has occurred. In fact, it seems to be only getting worse. This is where the quandary comes in being that time is running out. That is why I say those who block the way need to be ostracized and diminished, and the longer they refuse, the fewer options remain.

Furthermore, I've seen some speculative presentations regarding the bad intent of some of these so-called elite who want to hold onto their perceived power. I'm not sure of the validity of any this, but here is the reality. Just like us the elite are flesh and bone. They are no different, and for the sake of everyone (themselves and their children included) they better start learning. Global warming and ecological collapse (whatever the cause) is happening, and the situation is not going to improve for us (humanity) if we refuse to make the imperative and dramatic lifestyle changes necessary for remedy -- individually and collectively (we need both).

The frustrating irony is how much better it could be for everyone. Everyone. Because if the hoarders stop hoarding, then there would be plenty to go around and we would collectively learn so many better ways of obtaining the basic things we need to live fruitfully and sustainably on this planet. Sometimes I try to put myself in the shoes of someone born with a silver spoon, and when I see how many of them live their lives, I just can't figure out how there is any joy there. If anything, they have more to gain than the rest of us in so many non-monetary ways that privileged wealth tends to preclude. They just need a bit of humility, compassion for those with less, and empathy for everyone.

Sorry for getting a tad long-winded here and perhaps sounding a bit like a preacher, which I am NOT (I'm an engineer). Please correct me if you think I've got something wrong or am misguided in my thought process.

Peace,
Ken

Well Ken I agree with you.

"The frustrating irony is how much better it could be for everyone. Everyone. Because if the hoarders stop hoarding, then there would be plenty to go around and we would collectively learn so many better ways of obtaining the basic things we need to live fruitfully and sustainably on this planet."

And I agree that the people who have gained power consider their own class and forget that others also deserve certain rights.

There is an amusing documentary film from 2005, that explains how the ruling class thinks:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455906/

This was a user comment that is accurate imo:

"If you are familiar with the writing of Lewis Lapham you will find him surprisingly gentle in this film. Here he guides two recent Yale graduates trying to resolve whether it it better to be good or to be successful. This premise is used to introduce us to some of the most powerful men in America, to hear what a few of them have to say about the elite of that country and to hear some of them lie about there being no elite. Although we know the graduates are actors speaking Lapham's words, the technique works, because these two young men genuinely represent the newer generation who, faced with the existing state of power, have to decide whether to join the status quo or try to change it. The Washington Post accused the film of being preachy and condescending, but I disagree. In any case if anyone ever earned the right to preach it is Lapham, who has used his own privileged position to check the excesses of his class, rather than to defend them."

"The news in the movie, that anyone may be invited to join the elite, if it helps the elite retain power; that anyone who wants to fight this had better have a trust fund; should leave us feeling cynical and depressed, but the story is surprisingly charming. Perhaps it is from seeing Pete Seeger, alive and well at 86 still singing for freedom, walking in a country lane, encouraging all of us to tip the balance towards a more decent life for all."

From a higher perspective than the ignorant of Montana on Global Warming, we need to focus more on those who do understand it and who are working to ensure that change does NOT happen ---

This is the same thing as understanding from a higher perspective that sexism, racism and homophobia are actually also about exploitation and that many still do profit from it at the highest levels ---

And the book which teaches such discriminations --- the Bible -- also stands for organized patriarchy and the elite who profit from "Manifest Destiny" --

The purpose of organized patriarchal religion is to underpin patriarchy and to create license for exploitation of nature --- and other human beings according to various religious myths of inferiority.

But --- the profit at the top is what you should be looking at.