Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- How the Mighty (Mississippi) Has Fallen: Historic Drought Plagues US
- Gun Lobby Speaks: We Need More Guns, Especially in Schools
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- Remember All the Children, Mr. President
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
- Thinking the Unthinkable: On Mental Health, My Son, and Gun Violence
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
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

77 Comments so far
Show AllI think we should deny everything: that way the mindless greed that is what our species is all about will be able to complete its work more efficiently. I know, it seems like it's taking forever, but it really won't be long, now - it just seems that way because we judge everything by our own few years here. I will say it is astonishing that one can watch it so clearly over a lifespan (in my 60s). I wish I were young so I could deny it even harder based on my lack of having witnesses anything first-hand; but I guess I'll just have to settle for watching it as it continues to escalate. It's still an amazing show of stupidity!
webwalk:
I see that you didn't dispute with validity one item that MIMIMI wrote. I also see that you are good at calling people idiots, but that doesn't lend credence to your arguement. I see that you probably have no arguement.
MiMiMi:
I hope that everyone here clicks and reads your co2 link, just as I hope they read my link to realclear.
There have been more than one paper published about the methods of determining past co2 levels and their validity. Also, the past 7 years of cooling are being denied and not reliable because they don't fit into the models.
This is such a huge scam, and I do hope that the scammers don't get any real cap and trade crap passed in the next 3 years, as a 10 year trend will be harder to ignore.
sojor:
You talk about witness something 1st hand. What have you witnessed?
I have witnessed the geese flying northward later each year now. I have witnessed the start of seeding in this area go from a normal April 20th or so to early May because it has been to cold.
I have witnessed flocks of geese flying south in June which I believe is veryyyyy strange.
I have witnessed the coldest day in Jan on record around here two years ago. Note on record, which in climate terms for us isn't very long.
There are two sides to every arguement. Look at each side with open eyes.
Insulate your house, buy a car that gets good gas mileage, conserve our resources. Those are all prudent things to do. But even doing that, look at both sides of this arguement with open eyes.
Remember, not so long ago Darwin was put on trial and he went against the scientific consensus of the time.
Science is repeated observations, verified observations, and reproducible experiments. On global warming, the argument among honest scientists who deal in in the tools of science, hypothesis, test, verify, and reproduce tests to produce results, there is simply no debate left. Those who claim there is ignore the truth, and ignore the facts.
We have tons of evidence that our worldwide climate is warmer now, than in recent history. In just the last 50 years, glaciers have receded in startling amounts. "Permafrost" in Alaska and Siberia that had been frozen for centuries is now mud, the growing season in the US has increased by as much as two weeks. The day of ice-in and ice-out in major rivers and lakes have changed dramatically, and records of animal migration, and wild plant growth are showing conclusively that things are not as they were, only 50 years ago.
Things do not change this quickly, without some major force. This time, it wasn't volcanism, or tectonic shifting, or meteor impact.
Global average temperatures experienced a net rise over the twentieth century, and the average rate of this rise has been increasing.
******When scientists attempt to reproduce these twentieth century trends in their climate models, they are only able to do so when including human-produced heat-trapping emissions in addition to natural causes.********
The objective of the skeptics is to spread doubt, not engage in true debate.
FOR SIGURDUR
The increase in global temperatures during the "Medieval Warm Period" has been found in a number of peer-reviewed scientific studies to be greatly less than the warming that is taking place today. Second, this myth is based only on European weather trends in medieval times, when what really matters is global climate trends. Third, the Republicans who make claims about a "Medieval Warm Period" that supposedly dwarfs the current warming trend base their claims upon a comparison of temperatures in medieval times to temperatures during the entire 20th Century. The problem with doing so is that the comparison clumps all of the 20th Century together as if it is one moment in time with one temperature, thus treating the dramatic increase in global temperature from the beginning of the 20th Century to the end of the 20th Century as if it does not exist.
This is not about arguing about climate change and man's contribution to it. You'd have to be your own mothers fool not to see that. It's about telling the truth about who stands to lose the most and gain the least from denying it. That's the argument. Telling the truth about the money at stake. How dare anyone want to err by continuing the debate and not taking drastic measures to stop the carbon emissions from man is beyond comprehension.
I wonder how many of you are farmers. Here on the North Coast of Maine I'm able to plant crops a whole month earlier than 30 years ago, and we've had lots of wild, tropical-like storms with lightening that doesn't let up all night long, even tornadoes, a used-to-be-rare phenomena up here. That we're warming is without doubt, and those who live close to the land know it.
Deny all you like, corporadoes, reality is upon us.
Climate change deniers are at best duped idiots and at worst killers. You idiots here know who you are; so do you killers. Capitalism will be the death of this planet as we know it.
wcdevins July 28th, 2008 10:14 am
Climate change deniers? That's brilliant. Show me one person that denies climate change.
911 was a false flag op. Why should I care if humanity is doomed? Which, by the way, I don't think is going to happen. I think humans will ride the storm out. And somehow, religion probably will too.
"Show me one person that denies climate change."
Mbruton, Sigurd11, MiMiCcS for three.
The "accepted" 9/11 story is preposterous. Cheney knew.
You don't need to care about humanity, just understand that we did it to ourselves. If a few humans do ride the storm out they probably will fall all over themselves in praising God and setting up a religion to mark their sanctification as the chosen few. Then, slaves to religion once again, they'll go on to destroy themselves again. Read "A Canticle for Leibowitz" - it may already have happened.
wcdevins July 28th, 2008 12:32 pm
Sigurdur11: The Climate has been changing since the earth was formed. That is also a reality.
There's one down. I am sure the other two do not deny climate change either.
I have read "A Canticle for Leibowitz" and it hasn't happened. . .yet. And that was us nuking ourselves into the stone age, not us affecting climate.
Nuking ourselves, affecting climate change suicidally, what's the diff? Expand your brain a litle. You got proof it hasn't happened?
wedevins:
I don't know where you get the idea I deny climate change. If you read my posts you would see that change happens daily. Did you read the url I posted fully?????? If not, you should.
The difference between your thinking and mine is I have not seen evidence that the models work. I think there are many many drivers of climate change, and they have been driving the climate forever.
The tropo is cooling quit rapidly....and I don't like that trend at all.
I can see that you have bought into the co2 thing with open arms. That is your right and I respect that. I have not, and until there is credible evidence, I won't.
Stay warm and happy
Sigi - you are worse than denying, you think the change is cooling! This in spite of the obvious unprecedented glacial retreat, tundra thaw, and diminishing sea ice. What in hell are you looking at? I read your graphs last time and didn't see any of the ice gains you were claiming - quite the contrary. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gasses trap heat. Trapped heat makes the earth warmer. Humanity is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in so many ways, therefore he is increasing global warming.
Soot in the air gives the sun more solid particulate to heat up. Soot on ice increases its melt rate. Soot on ice reduces the earth's albedo and therefore increases the rate of solar heat absorption. Humanity increases the amount of soot in the air in so many ways, therefore he is increasing global warming.
How difficult is it to see that? How dense do you have to be to deny it? It really doesn't matter what you and your duped/murderous ilk believe, because we're all going down. The point of no return has passed, and the self-destruct sequence is in motion. Maybe it makes you feel better to feel cooling while everything heats up around you, but ultimately it won't help.
Stay cool and in denial.
wcdevins July 28th, 2008 1:32 pm
There is a huge "diff". You got proof it has happened?
Rachet down a notch.
wcdevins July 28th, 2008 2:04 pm posted:
How dense do you have to be to deny it? It really doesn't matter what you and your duped/murderous ilk believe, because we're all going down. The point of no return has passed, and the self-destruct sequence is in motion. Maybe it makes you feel better to feel cooling while everything heats up around you, but ultimately it won't help.
Can I add that to some other predictions?
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
Look, the hysteria needs to be turned down a little. On a whole we're a pretty clever species and I have a feeling we're going to be just fine.
Ann - What I meant was the novel is an allegory - yes, it was written in response to the cold war fear of nuclear annilhilation, but the basic idea could certainly be applied to today's fears, like global warming. You can get in trouble taking everything literally.
As for taking it down a notch, you're the one who out of the blue started a battle with me, over an offhand comment I made that clearly wasn't intended for detailed reply. Just seemed funny you picked it out, especially since we seem to be in basic agreement overall. Maybe you should pick a fight more judiciously. Let's all just ratchet it down and watch the deniers burn the earth out from under us.
"Climate change deniers are at best duped idiots and at worst killers. You idiots here know who you are; so do you killers."
How was I too know that was an offhand comment? And you still used the term deniers. Perhaps it is you who should pick a fight more judiciously.
I stand by deniers, because that is what they are. You insulted me and said there are no climate change deniers, which is patently false. In all of my posts to you I've suggested you try not to be so literal, yet you still cling to small-mindedness. Go in peace.
wcdevins:
If you are going to try to convince anyone that co2 is the main driver for climate change, you will have to start by stating facts. I have not seen a thing that you have written that would compel anyone to dig a bit deeper into this whole idea. In fact, instead of debating the scientific validity of the models, the reasons the models continue to be in error and trying to educate people on solutions to those errors, your sinking to a post not worth reading will not enhance the debate at all.
It is a fact that the earth has been cooling for the past 7 years. Emperical fact, not a model. Gavin said that if the earth cooled for 10 years that the whole model thing would be useless. We are three years away from that...70% completion.
The air temp over the Arctic has not warmed, in fact it has cooled. It does appear that the normal oscillation of winds on their 40 and 80 cycle, and the resulting change in sea currents is the reason the ice sheet on the Arctic has shrunk. The shrining is mostly in the western Arctic, the eastern Arctic appears to have an increased ice cover.
All things need to be taken into acount when you make statements.
Any fool can call a person an idiot, and the net result is at least we know there is one fool.
wcdevins:
I don't know one climate change denier. I do know people who believe that co2 is the primary driver, and I also know people who don't think it is. But they all know climate changes all the time.
IPCC models do not properly take into account the multi-decadal oscillations of ocean temperatures and currents. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) hold enormous power over the ongoing climate of Earth. At this time, both the PDO and the AMO appear to be shifting into extended "cold phase."
The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode (Fig. 1) is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and is not an oddity superimposed upon and masking the predicted severe warming by the IPCC. This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1°F per decade for the rest of the century.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. (NASA image by Jesse Allen, AMSR-E data processed and provided by Chelle Gentemann and Frank Wentz, Remote Sensing Systems. Caption by Rebecca Lindsey, adapted from a press release from NASA JPL).Instead of a rise of 1°F during the first decade of this century as predicted by IPCC climate models (Fig 2), global temperatures cooled slightly for the past nine years and cooled more than 1°F this year (Fig 3). Global cooling over the past decade appears to be due to a global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool mode and a similar shift in the Atlantic. The IPCC's prediction of a 1° F warming by 2011, will require warming of about 1° F in the next three years and unless that happens, the IPCC models will be proven invalid. _IceCap_(PDF)
The convergence of an extended solar minimum, shifts in both PDO and AMO to cooling phase, and the possibility of extended weak solar cycles beginning with either cycle 24 (still delayed) or cycle 25, should make for some interesting climate watching over the next several years.
Speaking of models, let's see what a Doctor of Computer Science has to say on the subject.
http://www.robertovacca.com/warming.html
rtdrury
"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"?"
It's not contradictory. Depends on what you mean by not discernable (that was quoted from the article). Maybe the plants know they eat better. I take it to mean it won't have a noticeable long term effect on climate, and the warming we have experienced has been beneficial and not significant. Despite a rise of 100 ppm, temperatures have gone up 0.6 deg C in 125 years.
The deniers are really cicling Common Dreams, ready to pounce on anything or anyone who happens to agree with the consensus of top people at NASA, NOAA, EPA and internationally.
Now they are calling these people names and accusing them of fudging data, as well as cherry picking little bits and pieces of information. Is winning tonight's debate really more important than the truth?
Some of the process for reducing GHG emissions has started. Renewables big time in Germany and Portugal, less so in the US and UK. Nuclear almost everywhere, especially France and Russia. Community organizations in towns like Cambridge, MA improving insulation and other substantial conservation methods. So there is some comfort there, but its not nearly enough.
Well, if Hansen and company are right, the debate is over and we are already too far down the path. With almost 400 ppm CO2, solar cycle 24 predicted to max, and maybe one of those big El Nino years to boot, the period 2011 to 2013 could bring us a whole new set of records. Not much to do about that except live through it and reduce GHG emissions as much as possible.
bbr-001 July 29th, 2008 6:23 am
Name calling is not limited to one side. In this particular case so-called climate change deniers are killers.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
bbr:
My dear Sir:
Think about this. Suppose the models are wrong, (so far they have not been correct unless they keep being tweaked, for their forcast of weather 1,2 and more years out is about as realiable as the forcast for the next 24 hours), and instead of the warming they predict, we are cooling. (Which for the moment we are).
What is the greater danger?
Cooling is by far the greater danger. If the earth cooled 2C, as some models do predict, our use of fossil based fuels would accerate dramatically. And along with that acceleration would come more wars, more death, more food supply disruption. Think about that for awhile and realize that climate modeling is an inexact science to say the least.
Food for thought.
P.S. Don't start the global cooling alarm, it has no more validity than the co2 driven global warming alarms.
Whatever happens - no change, warming, cooling... 11 billion is too many people, especially with 2 billion living the wasteful North American (especially) and Western European lifestyles. We're gonna "hit the wall".
My take on the science is the earth and sun are no where near climate change positions orbitally, that is supposedly some tens of thousands of years off. So the main climate drivers right now are the atmosphere and 11 year solar cycle. The NOAA and other mainstream models agree on warming. Observations indicate warming. I have to respect that Hansen and the other NOAA/EPA/NASA/University/IPCC scientists are the most knowledgeable people about global warming. I have to go with that as the most likely scenario. (I do hope the methane guys are wrong!)