Do you want to bet the well being of the world on a 10:1 longshot that they%26#039;re wrong, and do nothing about it?
On the one side you have a very few %26quot;skeptics%26quot;, largely people you%26#039;ve never heard of before. On the other,
The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academies of all the advanced countries, the American Goephysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Association, etc.
And most every famous scientist you%26#039;ve ever heard of before this.
World and corporate leaders have decided. They know it%26#039;s an uncertain world and they have to make bets. So do you.
Which horse do you want to back?
Additional Details
7 months ago
Tomcat - I never claimed to be a conservative. What I claim is that thoughtful conservatives (Newt Gingrich, the National Review, etc.), also say global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.By the way, not caring about the world is not an option any more. Did you know that we used to (through foreign aid) fund many schools in the Middle East? Schools that did not teach hatred of America. But right wing extremists reduced foreign aid and those schools were among the first things to go. Good decision?
7 months ago
campbelp2002 - I%26#039;m baffled by your response, since you%26#039;re usually well informed. No we%26#039;re not all going to die in 20 years. But this is a clearly mainstream position about expected effects, and it surely warrants action now. The authoritative sources I cited agree about that, too.http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNe...
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.h...
7 months ago
Dr. Blob - Sure. He%26#039;s saying the same thing, in far more detail. Hey, I only had 1000 characters.7 months ago
Jello - I only want for us to start doing something serious about it. Dramatically reducing the use of fossil fuels through nuclear, solar, and wind. Vehicles powered by hydrogen and fuel cells. Serious energy conservation, etc. If you think that will %26quot;take away children%26#039;s freedoms%26quot;, it%26#039;s NOTHING compared to what unaddressed global warming will do to those freedoms.7 months ago
blgrad2000 - You and I absolutely agree that people should do research. You might want to start here:Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). %26quot;Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate%26quot;. Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727, summarized at:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...
The temperature rise did not stop in 1998. That was simply an unusually warm year, an %26quot;outlier%26quot; in statistical terms. Scientists consider this argument a sign that the speaker is not a credible scientist (because of their extreme misinterpretation of the data), but is simply making a political argument. Here%26#039;s the data that proves it.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
I would be thrilled in everyone did serious research on this.
7 months ago
Oops. %26quot;if%26quot; not %26quot;in%26quot;.7 months ago
The Voice of Reason - Climate activists and liberals like these?%26quot;Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming%26quot;
%26quot;National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate%26quot;
%26quot;Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) %26#039;It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”
%26quot;I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial.%26quot;
Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.
%26quot;The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now.%26quot;
James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.
Says astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study: “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz: “Anthropogenic [man-made] global warming bites the dust.” Another scientist said the study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore.
(So to respond to a climate scientist they offer a guy who looks through telescopes and %26quot;another scientist%26quot;.)
Dr. Schartz%26#039;s actual conclusion after his paper:
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSu...
%26quot;I%26#039;m very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in,%26quot; said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. %26quot;There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that%26#039;s huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years.%26quot;
Skeptics%26#039; representation:
“Effectively, this [new study] means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of [about] 1 kelvin by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment %26amp; Public Works Committee in August. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore , was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.
(So now the astronomer is offered as an economist?)
Dr. Schwartz%26#039;s take on the economic implications:
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NationalPost...
Stephen Schwartz knows as much about the effects of aerosols on climate change as anyone in the world, and he%26#039;s worried. He believes climate change is so massive an economic issue that we face costs %26quot;in the trillions if not quadrillions of dollars.%26quot; He thinks a Herculean effort and great sacrifice is required to get the world down to zero net increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, an effort he compares to that which the Allies undertook in their all-out war against Nazi Germany and Japan.
%26quot;Recall World War II, where everyone was making a sacrifice: gas rationing, tire rationing, no new car production, food rationing,%26quot; he explains. %26quot;I don%26#039;t think the people of the world are ready or prepared to make such a level of personal sacrifice. Perhaps when the consequences of climate change become more apparent that will change. But by that time, there will be irreversible changes in climate.%26quot;
Time and again the propaganda artists misrepresent the science and the opinions of scientists and offer each wacky calim of their as %26quot;proof%26quot; that global warming doesn%26#039;t exist... no, it does exist, but it%26#039;s not man-made... no, that it exists and is man-made, but won%26#039;t be all that bad... no, that that it exists and is man-made, is bad, but will cost too much to address (and we can%26#039;t possible be bothered with being responsible for our actions if it costs something). Their stories change literally from day to day.
I want to be our future on the skeptics, but even the scientists offered by the skeptics as their best evidence say that%26#039;s a poor bet.
www.noaa.gov
edit:
The environment is not going to be fine. The environment is already not fine.