Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'
- Apocalypse Fairly Soon: The Moment of Truth in Europe
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- NDAA's 'Indefinite Detention' Provisions Unconstitutional, says Judge
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
Popular content
Today's Top News
Activists To Ratchet Up Climate Heat
NEW YORK - Teams of environmental activists are planning to take to the streets over the coming weeks to put the spotlight on policy makers who they say are prioritizing corporate interests in the coal and oil industries over the impending threat of global warming."Climate change is here and more and more people are refusing to sit by waiting for governments to act and watching them fail," said Alicia Ng, an activist associated with the international campaign called "Climate Convergence 2008."
The Climate Convergence is part of a global campaign that calls for acts of civil disobedience to draw policy makers' attention to the threat of climate change and its impact on the natural environment and indigenous communities across the world.
Apparently inspired by the success of British environmental protests against the expansion of Heathrow Airport in London last year, those who have launched the Climate Convergence campaign say they plan to stage direct actions in a similar way in several U.S. and European cities in the next two months.
As part of their worldwide campaign, a little over a week ago, thousands of activists gathered in the Australian town of Newcastle to register their protest against over-reliance on fossil fuels. They stopped all rail transit of coal for a short time, in a blockade that cost the industry an estimated $1 million. Later, they also shut down coal shipments from the coastal city of Kooragang.
Campaigners describe their direct action gatherings as "camps," where the protest-related activities are not merely confined to speeches or sloganeering, but also include workshops and music to highlight the issue of climate change and the sustainable approaches that are needed to cope with its adverse impacts on communities and the planet.
"Whatever we achieve in our local struggles this summer, they are amplified by the achievements of the five other climate camps around the world," said Connor O'Brien of the British Camp for Climate Action. The camps are part of a global movement to "[build] pathways to a sustainable future," he added.
Those running the Climate Convergence campaign are particularly critical of the Group of 8 (G-8) most industrialized countries' policies toward climate change.
"The G-8 are making pitiful noises and insulting our intelligence with their so-called targets," said Lizbeth Halloran from the Australian camp. "With world leaders clearly demonstrating that they serve the corporate fossil fuel agenda, it's up to ordinary people to put the brakes on climate change when no one else will."
The G-8 club of powerful nations includes the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Canada, France, Japan, and Russia. Despite worldwide protests by environmentalists, leaders of the G-8 countries, which consume much of world's fossil fuel, have so far failed to agree on concrete actions to turn to clean energy sources.
Despite strong criticism from a large part of the scientific community and civil society groups, the G-8 countries are also pushing for the increased use of nuclear technology as an alternative source of energy. Many environmentalists hold that nuclear energy is not only expensive but also poses serious risks to the health of the planet.
Mining uranium for nuclear power plants produces radioactive compounds that often contaminate groundwater, air, and plant life, explains the nonprofit Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, adding that the byproducts of nuclear energy include plutonium, which remains hazardous for 240,000 years.
The Climate Convergence campaigners say they want dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change, which are not possible without a rapid transition away from oil, coal, and nuclear-based energy production.
For their part, the largest oil corporations are not only resisting such calls, but are also continuing to exert their influence on policy makers to block legislation that would divert the use of fossil fuel-based energy sources and increase reliance on cleaner energy technologies.
In April, as oil industry bosses gathered in Washington for a congressional hearing, they faced angry protests by thousands of environmentalists who questioned their role in addressing the issue of climate change. In the first week of that month, sizable protests also took place in several other industrialized countries, including Canada and Britain.
The Climate Convergence camps are due to take place in Eugene, Oregon and and High Falls, NY from Jul. 28 to Aug. 4; in Kent, England from Aug. 3 to Aug. 11; in Louisa County, Virginia from Aug. 5 to Aug. 11; and in Hamburg, Germany from Aug. 15 to Aug. 26.
© 2008 One World

77 Comments so far
Show AllAnyone near West Palm Beach?
I'm ready to organize. I have a sneaking suspicion that the conveyor belt (the North Atlantic Current) is going to factor large in this climate change equation.
Maybe if we all figured out where in the heck we were located we could begin to coalesce into some kind of action that targets a sensitive ecological gathering spot.
Coal plants, electricity providers, Hummer dealerships, heck, the list is endless.
Aaaaah climate change. Can't whip fear into the populace with global warming while the Earth is cooling so now we must fear vague pronouncements of change.
Ignorant retards.
Likely, the public may pay for obstinacy and scienfific illiteracy with the lives of its children. All trends -- warming, overfishing, overpopulating, deforestation, diminution of living species, the cluttering of near earth space, poisoning of oceans and atmosphere, ad nauseam -- are unsustainable. The horrors are visible on the horizon. Perhaps nature will once again clear the decks as it did in other mass extinction.
PDA is asking members to contact their Congressional Representatives and ask them to sign on to a climate principles letter for presentation to Speaker Pelosi. The Speaker approves the letter, which is serving as a teaching and consensus-building tool for what a high quality global warming law would look like. Read the background article at the website.
We have to get as many cosigners as possible, as quickly as possible, so that Pelosi (who has said she backs the letter) to move on it.
http://pdamerica.org/misc/HouseGlobal-Pelosi.pdf
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2008-07-19-11-00-43-news.php
Should a grand jury consider the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BAOK1087DP.DTL * * Clean Air Performance Professionals
Charlie Peters
mbruton: A few more "vague pronouncements of change" due to overuse of carbon, just in case "climate change" doesn't do it for you: overpopulation leading to species killoffs and many other degradations of our planet, its people, and its flora and fauna; petrochemical pollution of many kinds, including (and the list could be extended to many more) fertilizers, pesticides, plastics, ozone hole; the fast-arriving economic collapse.
Speaking of retards.
I quote "can't whip fear into the populace with global warming while the Earth is cooling"? Unquote.
The earth is cooling?
Polluted air (particularly the Asian dirt that has been swirling recently) has been demonstrated to have a dual effect of warming the atmosphere as particles absorb sunlight and of cooling the earth's surface as the particles curb the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground. In the worst case scenario the surface coolness but warmer atmosphere might serve to mask global warming leading the public to be misinformed and underappreciate the full magnitude of anthropogenic warming.
It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean which for all intents and purposes is not a good thing as the sea floor methane hydrates don't want to be warmed. Is the heat content of the oceans increasing? Yes, see Figure 2 of : Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications, by Hansen et al, in Science, 2005:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1. pdf
Those who are crowing about the recent "cooling" need only do one thing: pick a set of temperature anomalies, Hadley or GISS, for example, and plot 10 year and 30 year trends. Once you step back from the variability of annual noise, the signal is unmistakable.
If we get 5 years of cooling, you have a story.
What we've had is 3 months of cooling, or more accurately, 3 months of less intense warming.
What everyone should remember is one important thing. Global warming/climate change has more to do with extreme weather events, whether cold/hot, dry/wet, etc.
What is so hauntingly perverse about those who deny the global crisis facing us is their purposeful disinformation actually is the nexus of destabilizing political entities across the planet, and will cause trillions of dollars of loss of economic activity. Go figure.
There is a simple solution. Stop breeding for awhile. Especially all you Religious Text Thumpers out there.
Ciao
Mbruton, the Libertarian conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was right about the Bush Administration involvement in creating 9-11 but he and other Libertarians are dead wrong on global warming. The now very small minority of scientists discounting global warming mainly have used the claim that it was the Sun causing the warming. We went through several solar cycles with higher than normal sun spot and solar flare activity having a warming effect but now we are going into several solar cycles with lower than average sun spot-solar flare activity with a cooling effect from the Sun. So any increased warming from now on must be man caused and not solar. The world will continue to warm and then late in this new century when the solar cycles again go to more activity than average there will be a sudden huge increase in global warming tipping off the run away methane effect causing sulfur dioxide emitting bacteria to poison the atmosphere as in the Permian Extinction. Such bacteria is spreading fairly fast off the coast of African Namibia now. The billionaires plan their underground cities for them and select staff and techies. The rest will be left to die.
I think it's too late for Australia
No water, no food, no hope.
But that's a cute logo
When I read this story about Alex Farrel provided through a link by another poster (Charlie Peters at 3:11pm) I am reminded of the report I heard the other night on Democracy Now about a young woman soldier named Levena Johnson.
If you haven't heard about her I can only reccommend you read this transcript. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/23/suicide_or_murder_three_years_after
While you're at it, ask yourself how four planes can be hijacked in mid air all recognized on radar BEFORE a sitting president is scheduled to talk to second graders; how not one fighter jet is scrambled and why said president proceeds to second grade classroom AFTER all four jets have been recognized as being hijacked. Someone needs to really explain that one to me.
I hope that the death of Alex Farrell is not a do-in. A man who obviously was working on some of the most cutting edge technology that would threaten the economics of the oil industry? I clearly hope that is not the case. Grand jury? Sure. Who do you trust?
MORE DECEPTIVE RHETORIC CONCERNING GLOBAL WARMING MITIGATION
As the worlds wealthiest nation and greatest contributor to greenhouse gasses, we had the duty and capabilities to lead the world in mitigation efforts for global warming and other environmental issues. Instead, this administration has done everything possible to stall such reforms through unprecedented manipulation of science and deceptive smoke screens. These abuses
have caused immeasurable damage to our planet, which will result in untold suffering as their effects echo through the eco system.
After seven years of these unprecedented sell outs, Bush, on April 16, issued more of the same rhetoric to continue his impediment these vital reforms--this man has no shame.
The US rejections of Kyoto, and then the Bali Conference, underscore the dangerous control that special interests exercise over this administration's policies. Their distortions of scientific data typifies their unconscionable war on science. Evidence linking carbon pollution to warming has long been as close to certain as science can be. Its causes, consequences, and mitigation requirements have been documented by many dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists
Some self perpetuating consequence of carbon pollution include Ocean acidification, melting ice sheets which absorb rather than reflect heat as the melting permafrost releasing more CO2 & methane. Inundation of low lying areas, spread of tropical diseases to temperate latitudes, sea life destruction from changing ocean chemistry, & currents, are only some potential consequences.
Special interests argue that the current warming trends follow historic warming cycles, and hence reflect natural weather patterns--but they omit obvious differences: The earlier warming trends developed at slower rates which permitted the ecosystems to adapt. Morever they resulted from temporary natural events, which allowed transitions back to normal temperature patterns--by contrast, the current warming patterns result from artificial causes that will only intensify unless mitigated.
Often overlooked is the fact that, the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were no issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.
Contrary to right wing assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our rejection of Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution. With our participation in international efforts, China & India could no longer use our non-compliance as an excuse for their non-participation.
The environmental and social damage from our indifference to carbon pollution can only worsen if we allow this administration, guided by special interests and minipulation of science to continue their war against our planet.
The gravity of these abuses eclipse the Lewinsky scandel which led to an impeachment, and are more dangerous than Watergate which terminated a presidency. Nonetheless, the prime blame lies not on Bush--but instead on the legislators for tolerating these outrages, the apathetic populace for not making themselves informed on this vital issue, and the five supreme Court Justices who betrayed their trust by handing this unelected pawn the presidency
Without effective programs for family plannning, the necessary environmental reforms will not be possible--nor will mitigation of poverty ane hunger.
Sadly this administration has set obstruction of over population mitigation as a first priority in their war on science and the environment.
Ann R. Key said: "There is a simple solution. Stop breeding for awhile. Especially all you Religious Text Thumpers out there. Ciao"
I believe, with Gore, that we can maintain GDP, and grow, by replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources and nuclear. However, your point is well-taken. To offer one example: Between 1970 and the present, the population of the Philippines tripled, while that of Taiwan remained the same. The difference between these two Asian countries? Catholicism.
And we all remember how horrid the mainland Chinese 'one-child' policy was for Chinese families, but looking at per capita GDP growth in that area one would have to comment, 'Who's crying now?'
I am glad to see that several other people commenting here are advocating that we have fewer children. All the major problems we are facing are caused by the fact that there are too many of us.
One child per family is fair and achievable way of reducing the population burden on this wonderful planet. The sooner we start, the sooner we can reach a population level where the human impact on the Earth is sustainable.
If we don't reduce the population ourselves, then nature will do the job for us and the human experiment on mother earth could well be at an end.
ubrew12 July 27th, 2008 4:25 pm
And we all remember how horrid the mainland Chinese 'one-child' policy was for Chinese families, but looking at per capita GDP growth in that area one would have to comment, 'Who's crying now?'
About 40 million Chinese men who will never have a chance for a Spouse and a family.
Population control is a nice thought..... But who plays God? And for the atheists: Who decides thumbs up or down?
Re: civil behavior 3.29 pm
Isn't anyone but me getiing very, very tired of people using the word "retard" to express a contrary opinion. Don't people who have retarded children, brothers, sisters etc. feel insulted and hurt by the use of this term? Can't people express themselves without feling the need for using a derogatory putdown? Is this lack of empathy part of the problem? Does anybody care?
"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Ancient Indian Proverb
Oh no......the sky is falling.
Well....no it isn't.
I find it hard to believe that intelligent people are buying into the global warming theory.
1. Take a look at temperature graphs. WE are about the same temp today as we were in 1900. WE have had a huge cooling during the past 12 months, which as an average is -.6C. Brings us back to the 1900 period.
2. I do like the idea of rationing elec. No matter if you are rich or poor, you get so many btu's of energy per day. And you can't supliment it with any other type of power as all elements of producing power, whether solar, wind, etc require carbon to make.
Conservation is a great thing and economics will achieve that goal. That is an arguement that you can't argue with.
Mr. D:
Anyone with a lick of sense will stay on topic rather than attacking the messenger. IF you can't do that, you have no arguement as you have no data etc to back up what you say. And it shows the persons intelect....when they can't focus.
Its not global warming, its global pollution I'm worried about. We can debate back and forth with each sides data. And wether we are heating up or cooling down. Pollution is a problem, and GM crops, pestisides. On my .25 acre there are few bees, or other bugs. My cherry tree still has cherries on it! Normally its a battle between myself and birds. Where are the birds? And weather out on my scooter or in the car, hardly a bug on the windshield? Have we killed ourselves off, and don't know it yet? Scary, very scary!
Temperatures have increased 0.6 deg C since 1880.
From 1920 to 1940 we had warming. Then we had cooling from 1940-1975, and from 1975-1998, we had warming, and since 1998 global temperatures have not increased, and might have decreased.
There has been no ocean warming since 2003. WE have had 50 years of cooling in the Antarctica which the models do not explain. We all know of the Medieval Warming Period, IPCC writes that off as beiong a local climate change not global, yet most of the warming we have seen in the last century has been confined to the Northern Hemisphere.
Over the last 70 years we have had a Solar Grand Maximum, where the sun has been more active than in the past 11,400 years. The solar minimum of 2006 is eerily continuing. The Maunder Minimum which lasted 50 years with little solar activity plunged the world, or at least the Northern Hemisphere into a Little Ice Age, and took away the green from Greenland. IPCC's 2007 report says it's understanding of solar forcing on climate is low.
Also, the same soot from Asia that might cause atmospheric cooling, also causes increased melting of sea ice since the soot that gets deposited absorbs more radiation.
Today's scientific myths work hand in hand with institutionalized funding cycles. Textbooks and theories and institutional claims depend on "consensus" of peers. This is a political term, not scientific. We have science by news release. Educational media and scientific institutions know that their funding requires adherence to the consensus. The illusion of scientific consensus starts as nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. When the "really big lie" takes hold, one can not "rock the boat", as too many reputations and too much money rely on our acceptance. Those who rock the boat are scorned and called denialists. Galileo was imprisoned for going up against the consensus, denounced as a heretic.
Good science encourages debate. No theory goes unchallenged, and Global Warming caused by mans CO2 is not even a theory, it is just a hypothesis, and not even a working hypothesis, since it's models have fared poorly in predicting warming accurately. Consensus science discourages debate when their is a political or economic driver. Thats bad science.
MiMiMi:
You have stated well what is actually happening in our world.
One can't keep their heads in the sand too long. After all, emperical evidence is pretty hard to dispute.
turnoffyourtv:
You are also correct. Polution of particulats is the problem.
Now, as far as GM crops.......there I do differ with you. Every seed that is produced, whether wild or on a farm is basically a GM seed. Natural selection has been going on for a long long time. Did you know there is a potatoe plant that kills the bugs that devour it? AS a potatoe assn, we wanted to bring it from Peru and breed it for production as it would have taken the pesticides out of our growing equation. We were told we can't do that. Now doesn't that just slay you? We WANTED to have production using less pesticides, but the buyers, McDonalds etc, said the consumers would resist this as it would be called GM.
OH well...some have no sense.
There is no doubt that we need to stop polluting and stop wasting energy, but we also need to STOP worrying about all this 'global warming' nonsense. It just amazes me that there are still so many people who believe this crap. This has to be the greatest hoax of all time.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-conclusively-debunked-as-gore-calls-for-co2-tax.html?GLOBAL-WARMING-IS-A-LIE
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
"When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do?"
MiMiCcS said: "WE have had 50 years of cooling in the Antarctica which the models do not explain." That must be why they are measuring mass loss on the ice shelves in Antarctica as in Alaska and Greenland.
"IPCC's 2007 report says it's understanding of solar forcing on climate is low." Are you implying that your understanding is better? If you're implying that its a huge source of uncertainty, ok, but what does that mean? Does it mean CO2 doesn't warm the planet?
"Today's scientific myths work hand in hand with institutionalized funding cycles...The illusion of scientific consensus starts as nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy." It seems that your criticism is about science in general, not just climatology. What myths, other than global warming, are you referring to?
"Galileo was imprisoned for going up against the consensus, denounced as a heretic." He was imprisoned by the Catholic Church, not a group of 'consensus-advocating' scientists.
"Good science encourages debate. No theory goes unchallenged, and Global Warming caused by mans CO2 is not even a theory, it is just a hypothesis, and not even a working hypothesis" Its a theory, which in science means it matches the data so well, its virtually 'the truth as science understands it' to laymen (like evolution or gravitation, two other theories). My knowledge is that the controversy, among climatologists, was worked out in the 1980s, and since then its just been well-financed Exxon-Mobil shills convincing the general public that its 'not even a working hypothesis'.
<> details Bush administration interference in scientific discourse of a different sort.
I would encourage you to post your reservations on realclimate.org, but you probably already have and have gotten your head handed to you by actual climate scientists.
Civil:
10 or 30 years isn't anything. Take a look at 1,000 years and you will see that we still aren't as warm as the Medivieal Warm spell.
ubrew:
realclimate.org is actually a fun place to post. When you present the emperical evidence, you get no responses. I find that quit interesting actually.
geo522 posted 'the australian news', which said: "Point 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures...but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming."
Thats a little like saying: "We know that a dog went into the box and there's plenty of evidence that he didn't come out. We know that there was a tiger in the box, and theory suggests that tigers like to eat dogs...but there are no observations by anyone that implicate the tiger as a significant cause of the dogs disappearance. None!"
Sigurdur11 July 27th, 2008 7:23 pm
Selective natural breeding to get a better seed is one thing, modifying it in the lab so that is immune to RoundUp is another animal entirely.
ubrew12: "Population control is a nice thought….. But who plays God? And for the atheists: Who decides thumbs up or down?"
Daniel Quinn ("Ishmael", "The Story of B") makes the point that assuming control over our environment to the extent that we have (e.g., killing everything that gets in the way of agricultural production, genetically modifying food) is in fact "playing God." His solution: don't keep turning more and more of the planet into human food. When the human race stops "playing God", population will stop increasing and, hopefully, shrink over time.
The mantra:
The problem with this whole debate is that when provided with evidence which you do not agree with, you simply ignore it.
The fellow from Australia is calling a spade a spade. There is not one iota of evidence that co2 is the cause of global warming. When you have a model and have to keep tweaking it to comform to what is happening, rather than using it as a predictor, the model is flawed.
There is growing evidence that no matter how hard scientists look, they just can't find the co2 evidence as a primary driver.
And just because they can't find it is no way, shape, or form a reason to not conserve, cut polution as much as possible etc. That is only prudent to do.
The thrust of this is tho:
Open ones eyes and discern the driver. Maybe we are doing something that has a cause/effect ratio. But so many being blinded by what they "think" is the driver, is causing us to stop looking and I don't like that idea at all.
I would also be looking at the cooling aspect. Cooling is a lottttttttttt worse than warming as far as effect on humanity, and for the past 7 years we have had net cooling.
If the sun has entered a phase of solar minimum, as it apears it has, and we are faced with net cooling to the magnitude of -2 to -3C as has been forcast by some, then we are in the hurt bag biggggggg time. I look at the -2 to -3C with as much certainty as I look at the warming models tho. However, one has to be ready for it in some way shape or form.
Antarctica is cooling, and for the folks who look at the warming models, this should be a huge red flag. It is suppose to be warming according to the models. It isn't.....so what does that mean?
Ann:
Selective breeding is modifying the plant genetically. That is the rub. A hybrid is a genetic modification. There are also potatoe plants resistant to early and late blight, but we can't breed them either as they fall under GM rules.
In fact, we could have hybrid wheat right now that is much more tolerant to drought and heat, but they also need EPA approval as wheat is self polinating, so they consider that gene breeding to be genetic.....which of course it is.
We are squandering land area and potential food production so badly by these rules. I would rather take a chance and feed someone, than let them starve, but I don't have that kind of political power. Guess that takes care of the overpopulation idea...let them starve.
Sigurdur11 said: "The mantra: The problem with this whole debate is that when provided with evidence which you do not agree with, you simply ignore it.... Antarctica is cooling, and for the folks who look at the warming models, this should be a huge red flag. It is suppose to be warming according to the models. It isn't…..so what does that mean?"
It means that its not cooling. I've seen posted evidence by that Oregon climatologist that suggests that some area's are cooling, but the plots shown indicate no cooling to ME that's significant against the noise in the measurements.
Why should Antarctica be warming, anyway? Is that what you'd expect from a huge block of ice in general equilibrium with a huge block of water?
I'd expect melting, rather than warming. And gravitational measurements from satellites orbiting overheads says? Melting. Lots of it.
ubrew:
Wasn't oregon where I read about the net cooling, it was Ohio. The Peninsula (sorry I know I can't spell), is warming, but the overall trend of the whole is cooling.
I have also read that using ping measurements, that the overall ice load on Antarctica is increasing.
Funny how you can read one thing, I read another. I wonder whose source is actually right? I will say this, I have no clue, altho, I do like to look at the credentials of the person who makes any statement, whether it be cooling or warming.
Don't feed the trolls,folks. Do you not think that an industry that can compel the U.S. Government into war crimes cannot pay some fools to deny global climate disruption?
.
http://freepublictransit.org
.
Make public transit free. Gradually eliminate the auto and sprawl.
.
Al Gore's stated mentor on global warming, who alarmed Gore so much he started an all-consuming campaign of education about it, was Dr. Roger Revelle, a world-renowned earth scientist who has a UC College of Science named after him, and who was the director of Scripps Institute of Oceanography for many years.
Gore did not pull this out of his hat, just for fun and profit, notwithstanding that that is what despicable rightwingers want people to believe. All Gore's figures come from other scientists. Where pray tell, do the 'facts' from sigurdur11 and geo522 and MiMiCcS come from? Do their 'scientists' maybe have their own agendas in mind and wallet? How cynical we can all become. He said, she said, he said, she said, until finally, give up trying to understand, and say to hell with it all.
Maybe we can just vote on whether Earth is 6,000 years old, or whether the sun is just a big lump of burning coal, or that global warming/greenhouse effect/desertification of Earh is not true and is not happening. And despite mbruton's claim of GW being just a device to scare the populace with, well, unlike the overblown whipping-horse of terrurism and evildoo-ers and nucular mushroom clouds, I don't see Bush and Company trying to put this scare into the people. In fact, quite the Reverse, they are parroting mbruton, and saying that Global Warming is all hokum. Must mean it's true, given the Bushites' current record on factual truth, don't you think?
See www.planetextiction.com for more on how scary an emergency this may be.
I trust the thousands of climate scientists over the politicians and bought-off technicians and yakradio shitheads anytime. I don't think tenured professors and scientists are crying global warming "for the funding/money" - that is just psychological projection by those that use this argument, because these people ARE people who would do anything for money, and believe everyone is the same as they are in this regard.
And to be sure, there are uncertainties to climate change, but you plan for what will PROBABLY is and will be happening, not what most likely won't be, unless you are just gambling and throwing dice. And what probably is and will be happening is Global Warming.
This is an emergency situation akin to a burning house not being put out by the fire brigades "because some believe and calculate that the fire won't spread to the other houses in the neighborhood, and thus the 'economics' of putting out the burning house do not warrant the cost of the fire brigades." In other words, hogwash.
Besides, if the scientific consensus is correct and carries the day, the life of the Earth can be saved with effort. If the science turns out to be overstated, we would still have cleaner air and water, a better society, and freedom from fossil fuels.
If the naysayers carry the day and they are right, we would still have dirtier air and water, a more polluted, unequal, agitated and unstable world, and would still be chained to fossil fuels mostly coming from unfriendly regions.
And if the naysayers are wrong, All Life On Earth Dies. The End.
Make your choice.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Latest NOAA Press Release in Total Disagreement with NASA Satellite
By Joseph S. D'Aleo, CCM, Fellow of the AMS
It was the eighth warmest June on record for the globe, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Wednesday in the 129 years since records began in 1880. And the first six months of the year were the ninth warmest since record keeping began in 1880, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported. The planets average temperature for June was 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit, 0.9 degrees warmer than average for the month.
DON'T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT. Just a few days ago, the University of Alabama, Huntsville came out with their global assessment and they reported the 22nd warmest in the 30 years of records in their data base (in other words the 9th coldest). In fact, their global mean was actually below the average (base period 1979-1998) with a value of -0.11C (-0.19F). This is a full 1.1F degrees colder than the NOAA guesstimate. The other NASA satellite source, RSS had June as the 13th coldest out of the last 30 years.
NASA MSU June Temperatures since 1979. See larger version here.
The global data bases suffer from major station dropout after 1990 (number dropped from 6000 to less than 2000) and a ten fold increase in the number of missing months in the stations that report. There are serious problems with their algorithms for assessing whether a station is urban or rural and adjusting for local land use changes. There are major siting issues, many of which Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and Roger Pielke Sr. have shown have not been properly adjusted for. An old version of a document describing these issues can be found here. Please note the NERON networks plans of NOAA morphed into the Climate Reference Network, a relatively small number (110 if fully implemented) properly sited instrument locations that should provide a better tracking of at least US climate in the future but will not resolve the historical US and current global discrepancies. A detailed discussion of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) contamination issue can be found here. Thes issues have lead researchers in numerous peer review papers ignored by the data centers and IPCC to produce overestimation of the warming globallly by 30 to 50%.
Time has come for a major independent investigation of the data sets, compilation methodology and adjustment practices (and records) for the global data sets of NOAA, NASA and Hadley. Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts are doing their best finding problems but Steve has run into many roadblocks suggesting folks may have something to hide. Meanwhile we will trust only the UAH and RSS.
Try this to see for yourself how bad the global station data is. Go to this site (GISS - virtually the same as NOAAs GHCN though the adjustments made differ), scroll down to the map and click on any region. You will see stations listed - notice the highly variable reporting periods. Start clicking on stations. You will get plots. But before you move to other stations go to the bottom and click on "Download monthly data as text". You will see for many/most stations numerous "999.9"s meaning missing data. How do you come up with annual averages when one to multiple months are missing? That is like making beef stew but without the beef. I was told that in many cases the data is available (Environment Canada tells us they have their data we show as missing) but that NOAA and NASA is making no efforts to go out and get it. Our cry should be after every NOAA press release "Where is the beef?"
FVHorn:
The world had been warming...now it has started cooling. That isn't hype, that is reality.
What are the drivers of the cooling? I have no idea, but I would rather have it warming.
We still arne't as warm as the Medivial Warm Spell, and that is fact. I would like to be that warm as it was great for humanity.
The Climate has been changing since the earth was formed. That is also a reality.
I am no scientist, but I read both pro scientists and con scientists who have credentials of equal magnitude.
I have come to the conclusion that in the models the forcing number is an issue and when you use different numbers it seems you get wildly different results. There is dispute as to the validity of the forcing numbers....and that is ok. There is nothing in this that is certain, nor can be proved with a theorem, so at this point it is suposition.
The above points stated.
Now as to conservation. I have already stated I am all for it. I live in an area of ND with pristine water, (yep we are farmers, oh oh...and we can drink the water out of our streams etc), the air is clear and clean and I want to keep it that way. I also can drive 14 miles and see a 135 soon to be 174 wind turbines and smile every time I see them.
I can see no emperical evidence that supports co2 being the main driver to our recent warming. I can see lots of talk, but no credible proof. And this is by both sides. I see our oceans conveyors changing, Gulf Stream etc, as they have changed in the past. This idea that the earth is static and not subject to change by natural forces is so silly. It has been changing since the time of the Big Bang or whatever caused it to be formed. I am not alarmed by change, because if I was, I would be alarmed every morning that I woke up.
The era of cheap fossil fuels is gone. Energy consumption will evolve from a different source because economics dictates that. There will be economic upheavel, as there has been in the past. Take a look at the period of 900-1300 AD and 1300AD-1650 AD. When it was warm, it was good. When it got cold it was bad.
See the above article to ref the differences that can and do happen. The models can only be as good as the data and perimiters in them, and so far their track record is not a very good one.
For all those who are willing to weigh the evidence for themselves, just google for the graph showing global temperatures for the last century. See for yourselves what the facts look like.
Meanwhile... the ice cap melts away in summer, glaciers retreat and the oceans are becoming saturated with CO2 causing them to become more acidic (humanity has added 500 billion TONS of additional carbon to the environment with 25 billion tons being added each year (deniers dismiss facts they dislike), permafrost is melting, corals dying... and yeah there is more bad news for the deniers to avoid.
Right now, even though it is winter, another huge ice sheet is ready to collapse in antarctica. scientists are stunned because this shouldn't be happening (antarctic winter) and theorize that the ocean water beneath the ice is too warm and is thinning the ice sheet from beneath.
Much is being made of the medieval temperatures... but not that it is the warmest that it has been for 650,000 years.
Deniers sing out about sun spots etc. but scientists found no appreciable effects could be correlated with the rises and falls of sun spot activity, yet deniers claim it does.
Watch the ice cap by the end of summer/fall... and see them deny that or ignore it.
Some deniers simply can't face how wrong they have been... nor willing to admit how wrong they continue to be.
geo522 posts an article from the 'australian news', which argues against Global Warming, stating Point 1:
"1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming."
Does this say there IS no increased greenhouse effect, or that this particular increased greenhouse effect hasn't caused an observable hot spot in the tropical troposphere? Because the first breaks the laws of physics and the second I find acceptable given the myriad ways in which GW could potentially express itself. The effects of Global Warming are universally agreed to be difficult to predict: the FACT of Global Warming is just as universally agreed to be occuring. Scientists didn't even begin looking at the Polar Regions until 10-15 years ago, and they've CONTINUALLY BEEN SURPRISED at how much has occurred there. Should we be surprised that the tropical trophosphere appears to show little change? The effect of CO2 isn't concentrated in the tropics, by any means, CO2 interrupts infrared radiation evenly throughout the atmosphere, temperate and tropic alike. This appears to have a larger affect at the Poles than at the Tropics. Yet the article in the Aussie News says that because THIS ONE MEASURE of GW failed to 'measure up', the entire theory must be ABANDONED!!! In any case, check out http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/ for a rebuttal.
In my opinion, GW deniers will continue to place 'proof' hurdles in the way of the science. Given 100 such hurdles, failure to clear any ONE of them will be latched on as proof the science doesn't work.
Aussie News article: "Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory." Anyone with an opinion about GW is running a 'model' of the climate in his/her head. The most sophisticated of these models says its real. I find such 'theorizing' more compelling than whats in an amateur scientists head.
gotta go.
Misinformation concerning global warming and its causes is plentiful. Evidence linking carbon pollution to global warming is as close to certainity as science can be.
Often overlooked is the fact that the very measures needed to curtail warming snould be untertaaken anyway to reduce polutin and our dangerous dependency on foreign oil.
Who is to be trusted--the dedicated scientific community or the deciples of the energy cartel and this administration?
ubrew:
Thank you for the link. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/
There is a very interesting discussion ongoing there.
Thanks again.
"prioritizing corporate interests in the coal and oil industries over the impending threat of global warming"
Corporations have no legitimate interests. The pretense that they do represents a siege on democracy. No wonder this democracy is non-functional. Everyone is giving themselves to the predators. Just imagine all those millions of American children being taught that they live in a functional democracy only to learn later that it's not really so functional when monstrous machines override the public will with "corporate interests" that mean nothing more than gouging wider profit channels into their bank accounts, while heaping all the costs/damages onto the people.
Corporations are inanimate objects that feel no pain when you strangle them. If not to benefit the public interests, strangle them for symbolism, to remind everyone who's boss. One of the key lessons in the progressive K-12 civics curriculum that we are designing gives students a strong intuitive grasp of how markets should work and it's very simple - they will learn in first grade that the market demand and public policy are BOTH sacred and completely off limits to profit/producer interests. If this idea does not mean anything to you then beware - you are under capitalist indoctrination and you should shake it off ASAP.
"The G-8 are making pitiful noises"
Pigs squeal. That's the whole purpose and plan of the G8, a capitalist gang that co-opts the names of eight nations, but most certainly does not represent the interests of the people of those nations. The capitalists need to occupy the headlines. They need omnipresence. They need to occupy the public mindspace to prevent the growth of leftist ideas. They need to occupy your idea space, your option space, your opportunity space, to keep you dependent on them. You are not to see the progress/benefits of socialism.
Hmmm. There is no drought in Australia. New Zealand's lakes are not well below what is needed to generate power for the winter. Greenland is not melting. Islands in the pacific are not losing shoreline. There is no methane lake in the far north (even though it was reported here in CD).
Hundreds of ice bergs did not float up the east coast of NZ and they were not filmed by television news.
There are no fires in California.
The oceans are not acidic.
The Japanese are engaged in legitimate whale research
The oceans are not fished out.
The shark species are thriving.
Tigers survive in their millions in Asia.
Gorillas do not have to live in the mist. They are thriving everywhere. Most of them run offices for corporate banks.
There are no animals on the endangered species list.
George W. Bush is not really president. (Er...um...well...)
The World Trade Towers are still standing.
Al Gore never won the Nobel Prize. In fact who is he anyway? As for the internet..., it doesn't exist.
Terminator seeds do not have Skynet chips in them. (Well that may be true actually)
There is no seed bank being built in the north to hold the world's crops just-in-case.
Ummm...let's see what else do we know is not true and subject to empirical debate?
Mugabe is a saint and will be canonized by the pope next week.
4000 Americans did not die killing over 1,000,000 Iraqis.
The US Economy is just fine. Mortgage problems..? Piffle and drivel.
Honestly these obfuscators and naysayers, and deniers of reality, stretchers of truth you're so full of shit it's a wonder you don't frigging explode.
ubrew12 said [MiMiCcS said:] "WE have had 50 years of cooling in the Antarctica which the models do not explain." ubrew12 [That must be why they are measuring mass loss on the ice shelves in Antarctica as in Alaska and Greenland.]
MiMiCcS replies: Antarctica is colder and there is more ice today than there was 30 years. You are referring to a localized region on west Antarctica and the pinisula which represents less than 2% of the surface are and far less of the ice volume. The warming there is localized. There are also active Volcanoes beneath the ice and in the oceans that could be a source of heat. Some suggest it is changing weather patterns. Increasing the frequency of the Katabatic winds may be a source of heat in the winter explaining the deterioration of the ice shelf in the winter, when average temperatures are well below melting. BTW, the Wilkins ice shelf is a transient shelf that likely formed during the Little Ice age. While Greenlands ice sheet is thinning at the margins, it is growing inland, and the net is an increase of 13 GT/year. The Antarctic icesheet/iceshelf, East+ West combined, is growing at 16 Gt per year.
MiMiCcS said:"IPCC's 2007 report says it's understanding of solar forcing on climate is low." ubrew12 [Are you implying that your understanding is better? If you're implying that its a huge source of uncertainty, ok, but what does that mean? Does it mean CO2 doesn't warm the planet?]
MiMiCcS replies: It shows they do not really understand climate if the only source of incoming radiation and it's effects are at a low level of understanding. Yet they dismiss increased solar activity with such certainty as an explanation for the little warming we have had. This says nothing about CO2 directly except to discredit their certainty that CO2, and only mans CO2, has caused all the warming.
But since you asked. CO2 is not an energy source. CO2 traps LWR that otherwise would be released into space, as does H20 which is a more important GHG, and they compete for energy in the same spectrum. Any warming at the surface due to trapping of more energy by increased CO2 levels should be immediate. Yet they say most of the warming of the atmosphere caused by CO2 trapping this energy in the atmosphere will come later. Makes little sense to me, and also some scientists.
I do not deny CO2 can cause some warming, it's a matter of extent, and why it is increasing. Evidence suggests CO2 levels are a lagging indicator by some 800 years, which coincidentally, the CO2 increases of the last couple of hundred years, if the CO2 data is to be believed, started about 800 years after the MWP. It's presence in the atmosphere is only 380 ppm, and man emits only 3% of the entire carbon emissions, so significant warming, AND man being the sole culprit for CO2 rising, is hard to swallow.
MiMiCcS said:"Today's scientific myths work hand in hand with institutionalized funding cycles…The illusion of scientific consensus starts as nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy." ubrew12 [It seems that your criticism is about science in general, not just climatology. What myths, other than global warming, are you referring to?]
MiMiCcS replies:It's not just science, it's history, education, health economics. Some aspects of gravitation and evolution theories have sought protection of the consensus. But this is a diversion, and off topic.
MiMiCcS said:"Galileo was imprisoned for going up against the consensus, denounced as a heretic." ubrew12 [He was imprisoned by the Catholic Church, not a group of 'consensus-advocating' scientists.]
MiMiCcS replies: Yes, todays consensus scientists like Hansen are simply priests representing the neo-malthusian religion where man sins against Gaia with it's consumption and release of CO2 (whereas the church said man was born a sinner and their priests dictated what the consensus was), and so man must be depopulated and consume less. People must have faith in the consensus, or they are labelled a denialist (heretic) . The word consenus and science are not compatable. The IPCC is a political organization made up of scientists and political hacks. They serve the Globalist agenda to use AGW as a social control tool and facilitate One World Government with a carbon tax on rich nations (for the poor nations they say - LOL) and carbon cap and trading (the bankers love it), and a carbon dollar as the world currency to replace the USD (the end of the US economy, may she RIP)
MiMiCcS said:"Good science encourages debate. No theory goes unchallenged, and Global Warming caused by mans CO2 is not even a theory, it is just a hypothesis, and not even a working hypothesis" ubrew12 [Its a theory, which in science means it matches the data so well, its virtually 'the truth as science understands it' to laymen (like evolution or gravitation, two other theories). My knowledge is that the controversy, among climatologists, was worked out in the 1980s, and since then its just been well-financed Exxon-Mobil shills convincing the general public that its 'not even a working hypothesis].
MiMiCcS replies: It is not qualified to be a theory. First of all, there is little good data to match over time periods climate should be measured, and the models can not explain the MWP, Little Ice Age, or even the 10 year no temperature rise period we are in. We have had satellite data for only 30 years, which Hansen and their ilk resist, since they have no control over the data. The data beyond 50 years has so much uncertainty with wide error bands, and is constantly being adjusted.
The ice core data that is most relied upon over 400-600,000 years provides data about 1000 years apart, and some scientists have questioned the validity of this data. Even if there were periods like ours with high CO2 levels, it could have been missed and were just averaged out over a 1000 year period.
The following article casts doubts on the data.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Also, the ice core data results seemed to change with time (pre 1985 and post 1985 which is the age of Hansen and the consensus)
"Proxy determinations of the atmospheric CO2 level by analysis of ice cores, reported since 1985, have been generally lower than the levels measured recently in the atmosphere. But, before 1985, the ice cores were showing values higher than the current atmospheric concentrations. These recent proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years (Siegenthaler in the ice cores. —even during the six former interglacial warm periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5°C warmer than in our current interglacial! Jaworowski et al. 1992b).
This means that either atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate (which is true), or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the of the ancient atmosphere are false (which is also true)"
If you still accept the validity of the results, then it kind of proves that CO2 has not much impact on warming. Since this period covers the depths of 6 ice ages we have had in this period, as well as the peak of the interglacials warming which are 5 deg C warmer than today. Yet CO2 never reached such levels as we have today according to their data.
However, measurements made by chemical methods with an accuracy of 3% from 1812-1961 showed that we had periods of high CO2 close to todays level. In 1855 we had 390 ppm, in 1940 we had measurements of 440 ppm. Perhaps there is good reason to exclude these measurements. But then I read an article where they say ice core samples that were estimated to be from the late 19th century and found to have CO2 levels close to today, and that scientists now claim that the air in ice in Antarctica from 120 years ago represents surface air 83 years later (37 years ago), so thats why CO2 levels are so high in the ice despite the ice forming when CO2 was at much lower levels. Thats cool, 120 year old ice is only 37 years old for AGW purposes.
ubrew12 [ details Bush administration interference in scientific discourse of a different sort.]
You must have missed Roy Spencers testimony before Congress. He has a PhD in Meteorology who worked at NASA under the Clinton administration. The below link will take you to the views, and he said he was censored by Clinton in what he could say before Congress, so as to not upset Gore too much.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3
Big Oil has a conflict of interest. But there are others who also have a financial interest in selling the Global Warming con. You have to consider it. Follow the money.
ubrew12 [I would encourage you to post your reservations on realclimate.org, but you probably already have and have gotten your head handed to you by actual climate scientists.]
I have commented to Gavin and his other Hansen lackeys under a different handle. But they have a habit of censoring comments, or ignoring a comment that they have no good explanation for. The circular arguments also get wearisome, and they site articles as proof which are not unavailable without a subscription. If you make multiple points, the comment on the weakest link to you argument. And of course, the insults remind one of going onto a right wing blog and questioning 9/11 or the GWOT.
That reminds me, someone had asked over on RC some time ago "what would need to happen to discredit AGW theory?" Gavin's response was "At least 10 years of non or negative temperature trend."
Given that NASA has announced the PDO phase shift, many expect there will be warming for the next decade at least, what will Gavin and his lackeys say in 2018 after 20 years have passed without eclipsing the 1998 record?
imfedup July 27th, 2008 5:40 pm ... 40 million is about double the natural male excess. Note that when the dioxins kick in things might change ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071022211704.htm
Hi,
As usual, i'm here late, on the West Coast, after a long day at work, but...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Thanks all you hopeless idiot deniers of obvious and clear scientific consensus. You make my day. Especially the Larouchite idiot MiMiCcSs.
Yeah, nothing bad is happening on Earth. The only bad thing is there are people - well, 99.9 percent of all climate scientists - who say that human burning of fossil fuels, and deforestation, and agriculture, and industrial meat production, have disrupted and destabilized the Earth's climate to the point of serious and IMMINENT threat to civilization.
i know you aren't actually studying the work of the scientists, but if you go back and read the literature, you will see that the year 2005 was the year that the scientific consensus went from "Global warming is happening and is almost certainly caused by human activities" to "HOLY SHIT!"
i mean, Lyndon Larouche says that climate change is a hoax, and he publishes magazines and stuff! Shiny glossy magazines, with lots of important sounding titles on the masthead! Forget about magazines like "Science" or "Nature", which have been around for a hundred years and which are read and reviewed by the top scientists in every country in the world! Larouche publishes the "Executive Intelligence Review"! Try to top that power name, you scientists!
Still astonishing to see the idiot deniers take up so much space here. Hope you are well paid for your work, fools. Meanwhile, reality marches on. The majority of humans on Earth know it, and certainly the majority of readers of CD know it. Who do you think you are fooling, really? Do you really think you are fooling anyone? Here's something for you - you are not fooling anyone.
Repeating idiocy with escalating vehemence does not have meaning. It remains idiocy. And the physical systems of the living Earth do not respond to your stupidity, the physical systems of the living Earth just respond to physical reality. Rave on, idiots, but thanks for the laughs.
Did you, by chance, read the article last year in High Country News about the history of Phoenix Arizona, how the lack of water has doomed previous cities that previous humans constructed on the exact location of the present city of Phoenix Arizona? Nothing to see here folks, please return to your patriotic shopping. The image of reality that you see in your television advertisements is MORE REAL than the image of reality presented by the top scientists in the world. EITHER YOU ARE WITH US, OR YOU ARE WITH THE SCIENTISTS! Patriotic Amurricans deny and denounce scientific consensus. Where's your flag lapel pin?
MiMiCcS: "I do not deny CO2 can cause some warming"
MiMiCcS: "atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate (which is true)"
These statements seem contradictory, or is it that "some warming" is "not discernable"?