24 Comments so far

1. Bob Pattalochi February 3rd, 2007 6:56 pm

   Obviously, this is huge and not surprising news. The world needs to quickly abandon every piece of machinery that produces exhaust! Solar, Wind, and geothermal working with batteries and electric engines should be our only powered transportation technologies.

   We’ll need more time to travel long distances, and more machines to move product, but so what? We’ll gain a cleaner planet!

2. Robert Settgast February 3rd, 2007 7:32 pm

   GLOBAL WARMING REMISS
   It is remarkable that it took the documentary “Inconvenient Truth” and now the endorsement of the U N report to alert many to the impending dangers from global warming, which has been obvious to anyone who had made even minor efforts to be informed. The evidence linking carbon pollution to warming is 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, and chronicled in the press for years.

   The dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data used by this administration to conceal and derail corrective measures for this threat and other vital environmental reforms has also been apparent. Contrary to their assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our opposition Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionately to carbon pollution.

   Often overlooked is the fact that the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were not an 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.

   The environmental and social damage from our indifference to carbon pollution and related environmental measures can only worsen if we allow these destructive environmental policies of this reckless and unlearned president to continue.

   Robert Settgast
   San Rafael, CA
   rhsettgast@hotmail.com

3. sallyg February 3rd, 2007 8:06 pm

   I heard on NPR that the Brits are coming to the United States to work with the Northeastern states and California to limit this country’s CO2 pollution. The states will be working over the heads of the Bush administration to look for solutions.
   I know it’s probably too little too late, but I’m heartened by any effort to wake this country up. On a BBC “World Business Report” last night one speaker advocated educating the farmers in India to local, organic farming. She warned the two corporate types–who called her ideas “romantic”–that in 20 years they’d understand that by failing to act, corporate agriculture is in fact romantic.
   The debate is on. Can science persuade business that reducing CO2 emissions is the only way the corporate world can continue?

4. chlorocardium February 3rd, 2007 9:46 pm

   We’ve known about what extra CO2 could do for well over a century and that this was coming for many decades. We even knew as far back as the early 70s that we could solve multiple problems by getting off of fossil fuels, particularly that of dependence on foreign resources. Let’s not get into the pollution.

   But Carter’s early moves to stimulate use and investment in alternatives and conservation were trashed by the Reagan administration (the solar panels came off of the White House, symbolically). None of the Bushes did anything meaningful towards getting off of oil. The oil companies are still in denial and think that their money will save them. We could have efficient and fast public transit, efficient homes, efficient factories and workplaces. But instead we are stuck with rather primitive technology in a cold spell, and with the knowledge that we are screwing up the planet for our children or our friend’s children. Are we paralyzed? Must we just fight energy wasting wars over the energy source that is killing us?

   Time to wake up. Time to do some big things.

5. tenayaca February 4th, 2007 4:09 am

   With all eyes on the massive destruction in Iraq,the business of big oil continues to ravage the Earth and reap billions of dollars for the possibly last CEO’s. Propaganda paid for my Exxon/Mobil to delude the Americans once again…and by many of the same people straight off the pro-tobacco campaigns. And the governmental agencies who are to protect the public, now overrun by Republican political appointees with NO professional credentials for their jobs…doing the bidding of the Bush/Cheney oil profiteers. This travesty of lies perpetuated by this Bush administration can easily lead to the total destruction of all life on earth. Why is there no call for a total boycott of Exxon Mobil? They’re calling for whore-scientists to write anti-global warming articles to the tune of $10K+expenses to try to continue to delude the easily misled Americans once again…after the entire world scientific community has met in Paris to try, once more, to bring the worst offender of global warming, the United States, to its senses. We really can’t wait two more years for Bush to leave. We’ve already LOST SIX YEARS that he’s been in office. States MUST step forward and take back the power they ceded to the federal system that has abdicated its responsibilities and sold our lives and health for obscene corporate profits. California has taken a small step in that direction, as have several others. We need to be proactive and reach others in the states that haven’t and try to make enough people in our country learn that THEY ARE THE REASON for global warming more than all others.An immediate massive grassroots effort may still mitigate some of the damage. Where, or where, is the concern for the future of our children? And their children that may never be because of the decisions made now?

6. jskinner February 4th, 2007 11:39 am

   What’s so special about 650,000 years ago?  205 million years ago the CO2 levels were about three times what they are now.  But no humans or industry to blame it on.  I think until we understand the natural causes and cycles of atmospheric CO2 throughout earth’s entire history, we are in  no position to say what effect human industry is having.

   In any case, the current global warming started about 11,000 years ago and human beings had nothing to do with it. At that time virtually all of Canada and much of the USA was covered by a massive layer of ice that was several kilometers thick.

   We are currently about 11,000 years into the naturally occurring warm interval that separates one ice age from the next. Data from the Vostok Ice Core shows regular warm intervals between ice ages. Scientists call our current warm interval the Holocene Epoch. The recurring cycle of ice ages and warm intervals presents an inconvenient truth to people who believe that humans caused global warming.

   The simplistic notion that human beings caused global warming with our Industrial Revolution and internal combustion engines is a very popular myth that is totally out of synch with the facts. The Industrial Revolution started less than 250 years ago. The internal combustion engine was invented in the late 1800s and mass production of automobiles first occurred in the 1900s. Global warming had already started many thousand of years earlier. People who believe that humans accidentally caused global warming are simply not looking at the big picture.

   Manmade greenhouse gasses may have inadvertently accelerated the already existing warming trend by a fraction of a degree, but people who believe humans can control Earth’s climate are kidding themselves.

   The belief that humans caused global warming has led to the unproven theory that humans are also capable of cooling down the planet by implementing plans such as the Kyoto Accord. The current melting of the polar ice caps is simply a continuation of the warming trend that started 11,000 years ago. Just because it is happening in our lifetime does not mean we caused it.

   The pattern of very long ice ages separated by comparatively short warm intervals is firmly established in the geological record. Data from hundreds of ocean sediment cores, and deep ice cores from the Vostok and EPICA projects, has conclusively proven and confirmed the ice age cycle. This research has revealed a very clear picture of Earth’s climate over the past 3 million years. It is a picture of a cold planet that intermittently provides a warm respite such as the current Holocene Epoch.

   Mother Nature causes the ice ages and the warm intervals in between them without any assistance from humans. Nobody knows the reason for Earth’s recurring cycle of freezing and warming. It is probably fair to say that whatever causes the ice age cycle is one of the most under-researched issues in modern science, given the grave implications of the next ice age.

   The global warming of the Holocene Epoch has been a great thing for humans in many ways. We literally went from Stone Age hunter-gatherers to Modern Man during this period. The warm interval allowed the human population to increase dramatically as previously glaciated areas became habitable and suitable for the development of agriculture. This in turn allowed the slow but steady development of technological advances we enjoy today.

   If we learn only one lesson from the geological climate data it is this: Eventually the warm Holocene Epoch we are now enjoying will end, just like all the other warm periods that separate one ice age from the next. These warm intervals last about 6,000 to 12,000 years. The next ice age will begin sooner than we realize. It will be an unprecedented global catastrophe that will make people long for the good old days of “global warming”.

7. optimismwill February 4th, 2007 12:07 pm

   jskinner wrote
   205 million years ago the CO2 levels were about three times what they are now. But no humans or industry to blame it on.

   That’s the whole point, which seems to have escaped you. So what if CO2 levels were three times as high 205 million years ago? There WERE NO HUMAN BEINGS AROUND. If CO2 levels continue to rise–this is what the report is saying–THERE WILL NO LONGER BE MORE THAN A FRACTION OF THE HUMAN POPULATION AROUND.

   Either you are a completely deluded Polyanna, and/or a company stooge. You white wash the problem in a bath of glittering generalities, without ever addressing the specific forecasts raised by the U.N. report. Specifically, AS A RESULT OF HUMAN-CAUSED EMISSIONS,most of the Earth will become an uninhabitable desert by the end of the century. This is cause for grave concern.

8. buber202 February 4th, 2007 12:14 pm

   a quote by Sir Shirdath Ramphal, co-chair of the International Commission on Global Governance is appropriate:

   How ironic that we should be so mobilized for the War on Terror and so supine about climate change and global warming.

9. PJD February 4th, 2007 1:11 pm

   Jskinner,

   The 205 million BP event warming event your are referring to - believed to be the result of a series of catastrophic volcanic eruptions in conjunction with the alignment of the huge Pangaea land mass on the equator, this led to runaway global heat wave and oxygen depletion, leading to the end of more than 95 percent of life on earth.

   But this coming mass extinction, perhaps the last, final one, is caused by humans themselves, therefore preventable by humans.

   Understand?

   There is a psychiatric description for your condition, it is called Nihilism!

   And frankly, the capitalist economic system that may lead to our extinction is insane, nihilistic and out of control as well - until it is reigned in all the needed technical innovation will be largely offset by the capitalist requirement for ever-increasing production and consumption.

   This needs to be the equivalent of war. Many things Americans consider “rights” are no such thing. We must no longer consider it a “right” to occupy a 5000 sq ft house heated to 73F winter then cooled to 68F in summer. The 15 mpg SUV and the daily 100 mile commute in a single-occupant car will be outlawed. and, Real estate tycoons never had the “right” to cover the landscape with incredibly inefficient car-dependent suburban development while walk and transit friendly city neighborhoods decay. Big-business-friendly local and state governments who decimate public transit while they give tax breaks to parking garages, like they are in my city, should be thrown out.

10. nhar February 4th, 2007 1:23 pm

    I find reading about global warming, outside the science forum, to be totally frustrating. Either the articles are extremely speculative, such as the article in question, or totally “head in the sand” like the above comment by jskinner. One can’t just claim that humans have no effect on climate when we have become the most significant geophysical force on the planet. We alter the landscape and environment far more than any other physical or biological force on the planet. From clearing tropical forests in the Amazon basin to removing mountaintops and filling valleys in Appalachia we are totally changing the landscape and the environment. In face there are indications that the Amazon could easily become a desert due to clear cutting of the forest without any help from Global Warming at all.

    But these articles which compare greenhouse warmed modern Earth to climate regime such as that during the Permian only make a poor analogy. Analogies easily discounted. For example, during the Permian extinction ALL the continents were in one land mass that stretched from the South Pole to the Equator. A far cry from the shape of the land masses today. To state that Greenhouse Modern Earth will have Permian type climate is laughable at best.

    On top of that, these scare articles imply that the Greenland Icecap and the Antarctic Icecap will melt in one day. Like maybe September 9th 2098, because by year 2100 Greenhouse Warmed Earth’s Ocean levels are 40 feet above current levels. But the fact is it will take thousands of years for them to totally melt. An instant melt is not needed however, a partial melt over the course of a century could effectively flood low land nations and displace millions.

    Speculative scare articles only give the opposition grounds to point out obvious flaws then claim we don’t need to do anything because the claimed effects just can’t happen. But the fact remains we don’t know what Greenhouse Warmed Earth will look like. If Russia started dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere because they knew they would benefit and it would harm the United States. Would that not be considered an act of War? Would not the US attempt to stop that hostile act? There are indications that elevated CO2 levels will adversely affect crop yields even if the climate does not get warmer. There are indications a mass extinction could take place with only a slight increase in temperatures because ecosystems cannot move as freely as they did in the past due to human infrastructure in now being in the way. Very basic dull boring scenarios exist and should be enough to motivate society to reduce carbon emissions. If they were taken seriously. It may be that only HYPE sells, but hype in this case can be discounted. Leaving the public to think that nothing serious will take place, until it’s too late to do anything about it.

11. Jaded Prole February 4th, 2007 1:40 pm

    PJD is right. The present system of global corporate hegemony makes addressing this crisis all but impossible. This is a matter of survival of our civilization if not our species. No matter the exact timeframe, we need to act. Only replacing a corrupt unsustainable system that places profits ahead of life itself with a sane global cooperative can save us. We need to start at home by demanding accountable public ownership of resources and major industries, alternative energy development and enforcable environmental laws.

12. PJD February 4th, 2007 3:26 pm

    I take exception to those who present the less probable but catastrophic scenarios as “speculative scare stories”.

    I am a civil engineer who reviews existing and proposed dam designs, particularly mine tailings dams. High-hazard potential dams - those that would be expected to cause even small loss of life if they were to fail, are required to be designed to sustain a Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event over it’s watershed, and a Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE). Both these events have only a rather remote (one in a thousand) chance of happening over the life of the dam. Nonetheless, prudence dictates we design for these events, and the dam owner is not demanding that the engineer “prove” these events will occur during the dam’s life before the engineer can incorporate the necessary measures, often at considerable added cost, into the design. Similar conservatism in design is used in buildings and I presume, aircraft.

    So, with the survival of all future generations of humanity possibly at stake, why are policymakers being asked to only take action commensurate with scenarios the scientists are “sure” of? Shouldn’t they be insisting that we take strong, draconian measures based on the consequences of the worst scenarios - those the detractors call “scare stories”?

13. White Rows February 4th, 2007 5:09 pm

    Global warming is an ‘externality’ of big oil and transnational corporations whose premise and profitability depend on oil, can only exist under the paradigm of fossil fuels.

    Resistance must be serious because it is the ruling ELITE making the calls for corporate interests. BUSH et al are merely proxies for the corporations that stand to gain: big oil and petro-dependent corporations… This isn’t about “reason” and “logical arguments” and a “spineless press” or a “weak congress” — global warming and war are natural processes of corporate fascism based on a hydrocarbon economy.

    Only the general strike has the power to bring it down internally. If it collapses of its own entropy, or is brought down by war, there will be hell to pay.

    Prioritize this, make this your “primary action item”… Spread the ‘rumor of the next American revolution’ and repeat this mantra: general strike, general strike, general strike…

14. reh February 4th, 2007 6:08 pm

    I think the evidence is overwhelming that carbon dioxide produced by human activities is leading to climate change. Even if the evidence was weak though, say only a 1% or 10% chance of being right, I still believe we should take action to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Some people believe that carbon dioxide generated by industry should be viewed as innocent of climate change until proven guilty. Being innocent until proven guilty should be the policy when dealing with people in law. However, the best industry policies take just the opposite strategy when dealing with new products – guilty until proven innocent. In the latter case products are assumed to be dangerous and ineffective until proven safe and function as intended. Companies have to first qualify and validate their manufactured goods before they are approved for use. This is the way things are intended to work in the aerospace and medical device fields where I have worked.

    I think carbon dioxide emissions by industries and individuals should be treated like the introduction of a new product. It is not up to the people who think additional carbon dioxide is dangerous to the environment to prove their case. Rather, I think it is up to the individuals who think additional carbon dioxide is safe to prove their case.

    We don’t need proof a hazard exists before taking action. We have been on this road before and made the right choices. For example, in the 19th century a large investment was made in many cities in the developed world to provide for cleaner tap water and sewage treatment plants. There was a lot of uncertainty about disease transmission and germ theory at this time, but people still spent large sums of money in a better public water system. Those decisions greatly reduced mortality rates and improved health in urban areas.

    Rupert Hazle

15. PJD February 4th, 2007 9:40 pm

    The sort of changes to our cities and infrastructure needed to to reign in global warming would considerably improve quality-of-life anyway.

    It would be a return to compact, walk-friendly car free, main-street-trolley line neighborhoods where children can safely play, chance encounters with neighbors on the sidewalks and in (non-chain) shops and cafe’s, big boxes replaced with small shopkeepers who are on a first name basis with their customers…

    I grew up in generic suburbia, but about seven years ago moved to old city neighborhood with many of these “quaint” features - and frequent bus service to my downtown job. I didn’t need a car at all except for relatively rare trips out of town. It was an “epiphany” for me to say the least! Most people seem to be clueless as to the degradation that car-mandatory suburbia imposes on their quality of life. So those who say global warming action will impose unacceptable restrictions on their “standard of living” I would reply that they should get a life!

16. hibiscus February 5th, 2007 6:26 am

    fear is an unreliable tool, wielded by the distrustful. but the fear of being beaten, controlled, or excluded by the economic system is greater than nearly anything, so describing earthly calamity may be the only way to loosen the rich minority’s grip on public debate.

    however that conflict is resolved, it will be a few years before emergency measures are taken. i suggest enjoying the ride and keeping your fingers crossed, alongside fighting the fight.

17. JHI February 5th, 2007 11:30 am

    If humans cannot stop their rate of population growth, consumption, and destruction of the planet (outside of greenhouse gas emissions), there will be little hope of our surviving as a species, regardless of how warm or cold the planet is. Though understandably, changes in climate will make survival all the more difficult.

    Humans are the most pervasive, greedy, violent and destructive species on the planet, yet supposedly the most intelligent. Perhaps, a better classification is the most foolish.

    If we continue to see $$$ when we look at the Earth’s resources and other species, and refuse to see the source of life itself and beings that have every right to live on this planet as we do - we are doomed. And unfortunately, we are and will continue to be unfairly taking many other species down with us.

    How such an intelligent species cannot see a better way of living truly amazes me most of the time - as well as saddens me.

18. hibiscus February 5th, 2007 2:58 pm

    You must be fairly smart to be foolish. Self-deception is a difficult trick.

    I don’t know how we can properly judge ourselves. We escaped our ecological niche, or it was yanked from us by the ice, and without that pressure to hold us in place our nervous nature meant trouble for everybody. I think. But I don’t think anybody has a right to live here. The giant accord that was reached among critters was not permanent, in fact, it’s the ability for chemical processes here to temporarily-rest-without-stopping that makes all the living and eating possible, right?

    Our anxiety and self-involvement is perfectly natural. It’s much more common among mammals than is a college degree.

19. ezeflyer February 5th, 2007 5:52 pm

    “Who Killed the Electric Car” brought home the fact that oil companies and car manufacturers will lie, cheat, steal, kill and stoop to any low to maximize profits. If the public was serious about stopping global warming, they would divest themselves of all oil and auto company stock and re-invest in green alternatives. Let’s put our money where our mouth is.

20. TheOne2006 March 9th, 2007 5:20 pm

    Global warming is not in fact caused by co2 emissions. There is actually NO correlation between co2 levels and temperature.

    In fact the biggest temperature change was seen is 1940 long before 4 X 4’s, mass produced products, etc.

    Ask yourself this; Where is the evidence to support the widely held belief that co2 is responsible for global warming/climate change (apart from the media) ?…

    Take a look at the science, don’t just believe what you read in the papers, etc

    Co2 represents 0.05% of the total of greenhouse gases.

    If you want to find out why the climate is heating up (at the moment), you’d be far better off looking at the correlation between sunspots & temperature fluctuations…

    And lastly, no I don’t represent oil companies, governments, private lobbyists, etc!…

21. outdoorguide March 19th, 2007 8:43 pm

    Riddle me this what was the carbon dioxide level say five hundred thousand years ago? Twenty five hundred years ago? Five thousand years ago? Answer this with a source to back it up and you’ve made a believer out of me.

22. aldea July 24th, 2007 5:27 am

    Follow the science - not the BS!

    The most potent “greenhouse gas” is water vapor. Water vapor makes up well over 90% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 makes up about 0.05% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Much of that 0.05% is natural emission. The human created part is a relatively small percentage of the 0.05% of CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s the science.

    Do you honestly still think that we humans are creating global warming?

    Seek out the real science and make up your own minds. Don’t follow the religion of global warming, and it has become a religion - not a true science.

    The oceans are warming. Warmer seas are warming the atmosphere. The warmer seas are releasing CO2. It’s happened before, and LONG before mankind was around!

    CO2 does not cause global warming. It is a result of warming.

    Look at the science, the science you can trust, and not the BS!

    PS: Al Gore did not invent the Internet either - that’s simply an inconvenient truth.

23. bnkekinurewu December 11th, 2007 7:48 am

    titkosekezyre…

    exxuhehanyti…

24. bnsyvyryzitu December 26th, 2007 7:28 pm

    titvokezupyti…

    exrakowexure…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)