climate change?

Climate change denial becomes harder to justify

By Editorial, Published: May 15

“CLIMATE CHANGE is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

So says — in response to a request from Congress — the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s preeminent institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers.

In a report titled “America’s Climate Choices,” a panel of scientific and policy experts also concludes that the risks of inaction far outweigh the risks or disadvantages of action. And the most sensible and urgently needed action, the panel says, is to put a rising price on carbon emissions, by means of a tax or cap-and-trade system. That would encourage innovation, research and a gradual shift away from the use of energy sources (oil, gas and coal) that are endangering the world.

None of this should come as a surprise. None of this is news. But it is newsworthy, sadly, because the Republican Party, and therefore the U.S. government, have moved so far from reality and responsibility in their approach to climate change.

Seizing on inevitable points of uncertainty in something as complex as climate science, and on misreported pseudo-scandals among a few scientists, Republican members of Congress, presidential candidates and other leaders pretend that the dangers of climate change are hypothetical and unproven and the causes uncertain.

Not so, says the National Research Council. “Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation.”

Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three. And their recalcitrance is dangerous, the report makes clear, because the longer the nation waits to respond to climate change, the more catastrophic the planetary damage is likely to be — and the more drastic the needed response.

That response, the panel concluded, ought to include not only a strong policy to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also a plan to begin adapting to climate change, some amount of which is already inevitable; more research into climate science and alternative energies; and active engagement in international efforts to control climate change. Given the global nature of the problem, the report says, U.S. action can’t be sufficient, but “strong U.S. emission efforts will enhance our ability to influence other countries to do the same.”

What happens when Congress asks a question and gets an answer it doesn’t like? The response from Texas Rep. Joe Barton, senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, provides a clue. “I see nothing substantive in this report that adds to the knowledge base necessary to make an informed decision about what steps — if any — should be taken to address climate change,” Mr. Barton told the New York Times.

He’s right, of course — there is essentially nothing new, and that’s the point. Every candidate for political office in the next cycle, including for president, should be asked whether they disagree with the scientific consensus of America’s premier scientific advisory group, as reflected in this report; and if so, on what basis they disagree; and if not, what they propose to do about the rising seas, spreading deserts and intensifying storms that, absent a change in policy, loom on America’s horizon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...der-to-justify/2011/05/13/AF44QQ4G_story.html

 

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

 

Got a citation for the 90s evidence that proved it false. BTW-I don't recall that the scientific method can prove anything.

And, since the 90s were a long time ago and lots of studies were done since that time, why should we rely on only the study you cite unless it is what you think the answer ought to be.

For me, I still can't figure it out.

IMO, I don't think it is within the scientific method to cite a single piece of evidence and claim it's the answer to a very complex problem.

BTW-one of the reports (funded by the "gravy train", so it seems that train goes both ways) Joe Barton likes to cite as proof GW is fake just got pulled for plagiarism and lack of proper peer review.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2011/05/15/climate-study-pulled-after-plagiarism-charges/

Seneca

 

Climate change has been going on since the beginning of Earth. To try to lay the continuance of such at the feet of men is more than rediculous.

 

Yes it has, but to ignore the findings of the research is also or more "rediculous", especially when that research shows the ocean levels will cover large cities and in some cases nations.

Man may not be able to stop what is happening regardless of its cause, but he is able to prepare for it.

For example, if you own a house on Fisher Island (max elevation is about 10 feet) in Miami and it gets swamped by mid century, what are the legal and financial ramifications?

Do you still own the land? Should federal flood insurance cover your loss? Should the state or feds pay you for a new plot of land above sea level land and rebuilding.

BTW - According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Fisher Island had the highest per capita income of any place in the United States in 2000. Oprah has a house on it as well as other famous people.

Seneca

 

Human industry has definitely changed the atmosphere's chemical structure. Whatever happened to that hole in the ozone down by Australia?

We're going to see changes until it reaches a new equilibrium point. What's done is done we can only look forward.

 

Meanwhile it's 15 deg below normal in Atlanta today.

 

Here are some supporting facts:

Carbon reservoir
87.5% CO2 dissolved in oceans
7.1% Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) in oceans
4% Biosphere, all living organisms
1.4% Atmospheric CO2
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm#composition

The ocean is the Earth's natural carbon sink containing 15% dissolved CO2 by volume.

"The Internet is abuzz with global warming issues which have polarised those who believe that humans are causing catastrophic global warming against those who believe this is not so. A United Nations panel (IPCC) was established to study the matter in order to advise governments of necessary action. Then Climategate exposed how this small group of people defrauded the truth. All this time an urgent need existed for a web site that clearly and concisely explains how the planet's climate works and how it varies, yet in a way that ordinary people can understand, while totally devoid of politics, beliefs and ulterior motives. Read on - with care: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate.htm"

 

The IPCC (international Protocol for Climate Change) is merely a consensus, an agreement.
Protocols are agreements such as at a conference. (Oxford Dictionary)
Agreements are by there nature 'unscientific'.
We could all "agree" Alan Greenspan is a brilliant economist who presided over a great boom.

Or we could agree there are fairies living at the bottom of our gardens.

Evidence is what counts not agreements.

Global Warmers indeed are morons!