2/1/07
Just so you know I'm serious, I'm using this link - yes, from Fox News - to confirm what many of us have known and dreaded for sixteen years. The debate is over: global warming is man-made and will cause seas to rise anywhere from a disastrous seven inches to a catastrophic three feet. Hundreds of scientists and reps from 113 countries have come to this conclusion, a referendum that included input from skeptics and scientists that paint a rosy picture. In their own words, "we have this nailed."
In essence, their average prediction can be taken as a "best-case scenario." Republicans, you were wrong. Bush Administration, you were dead wrong. Again. Last year, 59% of Americans refused to believe man caused global warming. Look for that number to plummet in the coming weeks.
The most distressing part of the report isn't the forecast, it's the powerlessness. The consortium claims that it's going to impossible to stop for centuries. We can only hope that sort of language doesn't inspire a kind of lazy epicurianism whereby we all buy Hummers because we're fucked anyway. We can do a lot to put a dent in this forecast and give ourselves a fighting chance at getting through this century.
It's a harrowing moment of reckoning, this report. Hopefully, it'll get the Square Wheelers out of our fucking way for good, so we can stop the debate and actually do something. When any of you read this report, does it make you throw your hands in the air and say "fuck it" or does it inspire any kind of action?
My course of action is to be skeptical of any "landmark" findings that are supported by the UN. Strangely, I am not alone. There have been resignations in protest over this panel, so I caution everyone to resist saying that the panel's findings are unimpeachable. Read everything and decide for yourself -- that is all I am saying.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070202a.html
Don't worry--America is ready to provide leadership on the issue.
They're offering $10,000 per scientist cash bribes to dispute the report.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
I bet Matt's kicking himself. He gave away his integrity for free when he could have had $10,000.
"But this is more than just a U.S. issue. What you're trying to do is get the whole planet under the proverbial tent in how to deal with this, not just the rich countries," Mahlman said Thursday. "I think we're in a different kind of game now." "
I feel like there is a lot of circular logic going on with global warming. Maybe it is guilt, but for some reason we Americans have taken complete ownership of the global warming issue and politicized it to the extreme.
I think we are fighting on the wrong platform. Yes, the United States must take a leadership role but so must a lot of other countries. This problem transcends our arrogant, self centered view of the world.
i agree with the above completely. i think it also transcends our arrogant, self-centered view of humanity.
yes, the world is changing, and yes, it is changing, in part, because of human activity. but it has changed before, it is constantly changing, with or without human help.
and yes, some things will be radically different because of these changes. but that doesn't automatically mean tragedy for all - it means adaptation, which the earth and all in it have been doing since our existence.
some species may become extinct, but some new species may be born, or be renewed. some areas may become uninhabitable, but some may become more hospitable to humans.
even though there are many things we do know about global warming, there are many, many things we do not, most especially the consequences (beyond disaster movie scenerios), or frankly, the alternative (another ice age? maybe global warming is saving us....)
it seems to me that the issue is not the scientific facts, it is the moral value we place on them, and where we place humanity in the scheme of things....
sadly enough, makes me say fk it.
party like its 2099
I'm putting my faith in the centrifugal energy of hula hoops.
caveman has a super-crush on annie. . . . i'm thinkin' maybe we can convert all the collective energy our crushes generate and power the world.
"DFB's&T's" is right. Also, the UN's report says that an anthropogenic cause for global warming is likely, in their view, not that the debate is over. In fact, its authors abandoned an effort for consensus. And it doesn't exactly inspire confidence when I hear of global warm-mongerers like Stephen Schneider saying stuff like this:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
I guess it's the Square Wheelers vs. the Chicken Littles!
Has anyone been to a third world country in the past 10 years? Because there are entire countries, and perhaps I could even use the word continents, where every single car and bus belches black smoke as they go through the streets. Factories spew emissions into the atmosphere 24/7. So when the leader of the most powerful country in the world belittles the evidence on global warming, how can we possibly expect anything to change? It has to start here, and so far, it hasn't. Do I think we're screwed? Hell yes.
Rebecca, Bush hasn't "belittled" evidence of global warming at all. That's a myth like the plastic turkey and alleged rise in abortion rates under his administration. See here, for example:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGVjMTQ5Yjg5MWFhZjMwZDYwODU0YjNjNThjNGIyMWY=
I wish Bush were more pro-active, but I also get scared of the hysteria about how the leader of the free world is doing nothing. Where the f--k was Al Gore and his soap box when he was actually in power? Where was Clinton when he was in power? Does anyone recall what the vote in Congress was AGAINST Kyoto -- wasn't it something like 98-0? Did Clinton ever mention it in his State of the Union addresses? Nope. I know this is a symbolic measure, but he never did it and Bush did.
So, as the astute Zel M pointed out last week on 1 of his most excellent posts, Bush always seems to be a convenient whipping boy. Let's not allow the facts to get in the way though, right?
Should his administration do more? Yes. Is it doing more than the previous administrations? Yes!!!
Matt, I thought that there was consensus among the authors of the report that it is very likely (90% certain) that human activity is a cause of global warming. If I am reading things correctly, a lot of the authors would have endorsed 99% certainty language, but they used the 90% certainty language in order to get 100% consensus on the document. It's my understanding that even China endorsed the 90% number (subject to adding an ambiguous and seemingly nonsensical footnote to the report acknowledging at least some degree of uncertainty based on existing methodology). If I am wrong about that, please feel free to correct me. Otherwise, I don't think it's fair to say that "the authors abandoned an effort for consensus." A consensus that the probability is at least 90% is pretty startling.
Curtis, I read an article, on Wednesday, I believe, where one of the contributors to the UN report was quoted as saying it was decided amongst them to "abandon" an effort to reach consensus on the amount of the anthropogenic contribution. I'll try to find it again. Also, the person who headed the report, I forget her name, was quoted in the same article as saying she received hundreds of inputs from scientists who criticized some aspects of the findings, but they were rejected for being untimely.
By the way, where does this "90%" figure come from? By what calculus did they arrive at that? Or is it merely a hunch, something the contributors pulled out of the air, to assure us of how sure they think they are? Doesn't sound very scientific. I'll grant you that most climatologists blame humankind, but there is considerable reason to doubt anyone who says they are 100% certain (i.e. "the debate is over") they know how global climate systems work and what impact each variable has. As I've noted before, many of the heretics to this new religion have posed inconvenient questions about such certainties and how much we know about natural causes (solar activity, etc.) to climate changes.
Matt, is your name really George? Because you belittle everything Ian and Kent and various others here say!
The IPCC described in great detail in the document linked below what the percentages mean.
http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/uncertaintyguidancenote.pdf
It may not sound very scientific to you, but can you propose a better way to attempt to characerize a consensus document among a very large group of scientists who may have a wide variety of differential shadings to their opinions? By the way, the IPCC doesn't even include 100% certainty as an option on its scale, so your attempt to cast doubt on the IPCC process on that basis is, well, baseless.
Just as an aside, your reference to global warming as a "new religion" undermines your credibility and does not advance the ball. A religion is a belief system based on factors unrelated to science. This is a debate about the implications of empirical data.
I just fail to understand why everyone doesn't willingly adopt some measure of conservation on their own to combat what might potentially be a problem in the future.
I also hate the way the far right seems to always get defensive and tries to make themselves look better by pointing out what the previous administration failed to do, as though that gives them a sense of absolution. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I also hate the way the far left makes it sound like a a glacier is going to slide down Broadway by mid-August if we don't all buy a Prius tomorrow. Hyperbole should only be used in describing the winning shot you made in an intramural game or when talking about the hot date from the night before.
Separate your plastics and aluminum cans from your regular trash. If all things are equal and you can afford the vehicle or the [insert manufactured product here] that puts out fewer emissions and is purportedly better for the enviornment, consider choosing that option.
In the interim, both sides need to get closer to reality.
Time to go Solar! Don't give me that "how could we be completely dependent on the sun - we'd be so vulnerable" guff. We are already completely dependent on the sun's energy in every way, every day.
Everything we eat or burn for fuel is just stored solar energy. Solar power will be a more efficient, effective, less harmful way of harvesting the Sun's energy than fossil fuel. And no radioactive waste produced.
Envision miles of solar towers in the desert, powering cities. On down the line, envision our entire electrical grid powered by harvesting the billions of kilowatts of solar energy that hit the earth every day.
http://www.votesolar.org/
http://www.enviromission.com.au/
http://www.sbp.de/
http://www.solarmissiontechnologies.com/Its been said before; in switching to renewable energy, we won't be saving the earth - it will be here long after we're gone. But we might be saving our selves.
Once again Matt chooses to believe people who are paid well to be Global Warming skeptics, and disbelieve people who are actual scientists doing actual research. Whatever Matt.
I bet you wouldn't be so choosy about which medical research to believe in if, god forbid, you got a serious illness. Oh wait, you probably oppose stem cell research, never mind.
It is so fucking BLINDINGLY obvious what the way forward for the human race should be with respect to burning fossil fuels, cutting down rain forests, polluting rivers, lakes and oceans etc. But it won't stop until either there's enough political will to stop treating the Earth like an ashtray. Or, until all the corporations and ultra-rich have rung every possible dollar out of raping the planet, and moved to their balmy walled compounds in northern Canada to watch the rest of us fight over the scraps.
Matt, assuming you're not getting paid to come on here and be the devil's advocate, let me say I don't know why you're so willing to apologize for the scumbags who are fighting any sort of real environmental progress tooth and nail. What do you get out of it?
Curtis and Rebecca: It's not true what you say. I don't comment on 90% of what Ian and Kent write about and what I have disagreed with, the certainty of anthropogenic GW, for instance, I've done so respectfully, which is more than can be said for certain others.
Thanks for proving my last point, Kent.
By the way, here's one of those scientists with no bias, Kent keeps talking about:
"By involving governments in the process of melding scientific findings, the panel, in effect, gives politicians some "ownership" of the findings, said Stephen Schneider, a Stanford climatologist involved in the IPCC since it was created in 1988.
"Schneider said the first assessment, in 1990, did not have widespread impact because it was mainly written by scientists from a few industrialized countries. As a result, organizers and scientists invited researchers picked by governments in developing countries to participate, he said.
"Ownership across governments radically altered how these reports have been received," Schneider said. "This was no longer something imposed on them. They were part of it. They may not like what it says, but they own it. That process took 10 years, but it built a lot of trust."
Now go up and read Schneider's words in my 7:59am comment. He certainly worked on that "widespread impact" thing, huh? Who does he think he's kidding?
Here's another:
Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton scientist who has been an author and reviewer of IPCC reports for many years, said: "I am not proposing that the search for consensus be abandoned. It will always be valuable."
But, added Oppenheimer, who previously worked for the private group Environmental Defense, ..."
Nope, no bias there I'm sure.
Matt, what did I say that wasn't true?
I'm with GFWD on this one. There's never going to be consensus on this issue, but the effect that mankind has had on the environment, rising seas or no, is undeniable. We all owe it to ourselves, our children, the animals of the world, and the planet itself to do what we can, within reason, to lessen our personal impact on the environment. All of the hand-wringing in the world over where the 90% figure came from isn't going to keep another species from extinction, nor is it going to stop the black smoke from belching out of Third-World buses. However futile and impotent we as individual actors might feel, it is, in the end, up to us to make Earth a habitable place for now and for the future.
I'm with you, eric g. I understand that there may still be a bit of uncertainty about the conclusion of the IPCC report. As Matt suggested, it may be difficult to reach most scientific conclusions with absolute 100% certainty. Yet some folks seem to be implying that we shouldn't change our conduct until there is complete consensus, no more debate, and near 100% certainty that humans are causing or contributing the problem. I don't know about you, but if there is a 90% chance that driving my car off a cliff will kill me, I'm hitting the damn breaks.
er, brakes. Actually trying to avoid breaks.
Wow, what a demoralizing set of comments from the usual suspects. It would be funny if people like Matt and Dean weren't in the majority of Americans and thus unconsciously dictating the kind of world Lucy is going to live in. Do any of you conservatives have kids? It's enough to make you fucking weep.
I would just stop talking about this shit, except that these words, now semi-forever cached on the internet, will be poignant/tragic for those reading in the future.
I just don't get the conservative mindset: so willing to kill Arabs for what they might do, and so unwilling to do anything to save their own kids from what has a 90% chance of happening. I hope we outgrow that kind of cruelty, but it's looking bleak.
Ian, if you can't beat 'em, out breed 'em. I have 3 kids. You and Tessa need to get busy!
Okay, I meant that as a joke, but in re-reading my post, it's just not that funny. Sorry.
Important to remember that this panel was put together by the UN, the same UN that had Kofi Annan's son getting kickbacks, and the same UN where undersecretary General Benon Sevan was indicted just weeks ago in New York for bribery. So I would be very skeptical to believe anything which comes out of the UN, especially given that the UN is very heavily tilted in favor of small nations, which of course are against the large nations.
Being that the UN issues this report, I put no more weight upon it than I would any report coming out of a left wing organization such as Greenpeace or an Al Gore embellished movie.
Remember, these were the same scientists that only 30 years ago that said in Newsweek that the world needs to get ready for Global Cooling.
Never mind that all their prior predictions of doom and gloom were wrong. Never mind that prior UN reports deliberately excluded evidence of past warming cycles. Never mind that we cannot forecast the weather more than a few days ahead, but somehow we can predict what will happen to the climate in 10, 30, 100 years?
The seas won’t rise to drown New York before the next cooling, because 90 percent of the world’s remaining ice is in the melt-resistant Antarctic. Even a 5 degree C warming would decrease its ice mass by only 1.5 percent, over centuries.
I'd believe a used car dealer before believe the UN.
"I just don't get the conservative mindset: so willing to kill Arabs for what they might do.."
Good grief. How can an intelligent, rational person even write such a thing? You've finally convinced me there's no point in this (and that you may have lost your mind).
Best of luck to you all, honestly. Perhaps I'll check back in after Nov '08.
Matt, I wrote it and I'll stand by it.
We invaded Iraq for a lot of reasons, but if you believe Cheney, it was because we now saw Hussein "through the prism of 9/11." In other words, we're going to wipe out this "threat" because we THOUGHT they might do something bad. Current tally: over 3000 Americans dead. And at least 650,000 Iraqis, who, by and large, are Arabs.
And now we face a potentially devastating future that has a 90% of happening, and all you do on here (besides your nice comments that have nothing to do with politics) is spend hours telling everybody it's not a problem, using conservative thinktanks and discreditable sources as evidence. In many ways, allowing your comments could be considered irresponsible on my part.
But you've always been cordial, which is more than I can say for JamesD, whom I've given a short leash since the days he was better known as JB00GIE, disparaging my family and harping on my physical appearance. And it's true that my comment wasn't particularly cordial today, but I've just fucking HAD IT with the deniers. There's just too much at stake.
Have I "lost my mind"? Maybe. But I'm looking at the world and this is what I see. I'm not the only one. I apologize if this makes you leave. When it comes to everything else we talk about, I've always really enjoyed your input.
Wait a goddamn second. You let JB00GIE back the crap on this blog? Ian, seriously. Why? One of my coaches said something to me that has really stuck with me: cruel people ALWAYS have the capacity to be cruel. Just because sometimes they are kind or nice or cordial, at any moment they can become cruel. I don't get why you invite such people into your, and all of our, lives. I guess I could just stop reading this blog, but I feel like it's a place for me, not a place for people like him.
Michelle, don't worry. There are ways around the blacklist, but I know what they are, and I (along with the webmaster and sysadmin) always know when it's him. As long as he doesn't make any personal attacks and keep things within reason, I'm not going to spend more than five seconds dealing with it.
Someone questioned where Gore and Clinton were on this issue when they were in office -- they were the same place they are now, but with a opposition congress that wouldn't listen to a thing they said, and dragged them all the rest of us around to talk about a irrelevant dress, while this mess got worse and 2/3rds of the world's economy collapsed as well.
Looks like the distractions from the real issues (90% versus 99%? Gosh that's important) are still the norm.
Just so we're clear, there are two things at work here.
A)Conservatives are towing the party line because they're supposed to. They are obedient to the party line to the point that even when their leaders show signs of changing, they assume those changes are just to court the idiots on the left. It's a combination of arrogance, intellectual laziness, stubbornness and complete obedience to corporate America.
B) People who believe in God can't believe for a moment that global warming is possible. It's illogical that humanity and the planet Earth could be destroyed or even wounded by casual human behavior. While it is impossible to prove the existence of God, there is endless, endless proof to the contrary and it would be extremely difficult to prove that God made man in his own image and the earth as the center of the universe if we could accidentally kill of humanity by driving a car that's too large.
C) It doesn't matter whether people believe in global warming or not. Yes, there are things we can do as individuals to help curb the destruction, but until the real polluters take it on as their responsibility, keeping our heat at 61 or turning off the nightlights isn't gonna stop where our world is going.
Basically, for Matt and J.B. and whomever else, their point of view is not only disregardable because of the lack of power any one person has over something like this, but the vehemence also belies the fact that they don't completely believe in what they are saying. The difference between a fool and clown is volume and vehemence. A fool talks to you and annoys you, a clown jumps up and down and screams and is, for a short time, nothing other than amusing.
The debate about whether humans are causing global warming due to carbon emissions and what the resulting harm will be is an important debate. But let's try get beyond it for a moment.
Tangled up in the scientific debate is a political debate. Separating the political thread and examining it may help us make progress on reducing energy use and CO2 emissions, even while the larger debate continues.
Why are "conservatives" and "libertarians" expressing skepticism about global warming? Because they like global environmental catastrophy and images of poor people drowing? Of course not. Why are "progressives" and "environmentalists" passionately arguing that global warming is real and we need to make serious changes right now? Because they want you to live in an unplugged grass-roofed shed subsisting on a vegan diet while they jet around with Laurie David? Of course not.
There is, however, a fundamental disagreement over political philosophy between those on different sides of the issue. One side generally favors governmental restrictions on production and consumption of goods and services aimed at protecting the environment (and other goals). The other side is far less comfortable with governmental restrictions of this kind and while they do not always oppose them, they do require a HIGHER STANDARD OF PROOF when the GOVERMENT will be imposing such restriction than does the other side of the debate.
If you look at the posts above, much of it is a debate about 1) what is the appropriate standard of proof, and 2) whether it has been met. As a lawyer, I understand how important these underlying questions are to resolving a dispute.
I think this very fundamental difference of opinion -- informed on each side by a number of different cultural and intellectual influences --explains why some people really dig in their heals during the debate about whether man is causing global warming and, if so, whether and how much harm will occur.
I think that people on both sides of this debate should recognize that their is a political dispute that is BOGGING DOWN the scientific argument, recognize that the other side is not going to change its political beliefs for ANY REASON, and to paraphrase some wise words, that we need to accept the things we cannot change and find the courage to change the things we can.
In short, one can move forward now with voluntary and the relatively non-intrusive govermental solutions that will reduce CO2 emissions (and provide other benefits) while the debate about the more whether the government should take far more drastic action continues.
What is the harm in making progress on energy conservation that a majority of American can support even while both sides continue the larger political/governemental battle?
I agree with Michelle -- you are being more than fair by letting jB**gie back.
And, I have to thank you for raising my personal awareness about the environment and global warming. You, Kent, et al have directed me to links that I would not have bothered with otherwise. Like most Americans, I am very self-centered! (my mortgage, my neighborhood, my job, yada yada yada) Hopefully, the fact that you influenced me and my little family helps to balance out the nonsense from jB**gie and the Gang.
Honestly, I don't understand all of the energy that goes into denying global warming?! Just take a look around!
Chris M, you and I don't agree about much, but that is the best-reasoned post I've ever read from your side of the table.
Thanks, Ian. Here is an article that demonstrates actors who are usually antagonists working togther to make a real difference. If Greens can collaborate with (brace yourselves) GE and Walmart to reduce energy consumption, anything is possible!
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open_lightbulbs.html