# Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 3, 2007)

For those of you who may be sitting on the fence regarding this issue, this _New York Times_ article is a clarion call to action.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?th&emc=th


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 3, 2007)

Oh, yes, and I love this bit:



> Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman rejected the idea of unilateral limits on emissions. “We are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world, so it’s really got to be a global solution,” he said.
> 
> The United States, with about 5 percent of the world’s population, contributes about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other country.


 
Errrr... run that by me again?...

Or this continued idiocy:



> Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who has called the idea of dangerous human-driven warming a hoax, issued a news release headed “Corruption of Science” that rejected the report as “a political document.”


 
Reminds me of Sizzi, the Italian astronomer, who argued about the moons of Jupiter: "Moreover, the satellites are invisible to the naked eye, and therefore can exert no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, _and therefore do not exist!_" As HPL put it: "'Twas vastly inconsiderate of Galileo to see these troublesome orbs, after they had been conclusively demonstrated not to exist at all!"

And for those who've been debating about the impact of the ice melting:



> The panel said there was no solid scientific understanding of how rapidly the vast stores of ice in polar regions will melt, so their estimates on new sea levels were based mainly on how much the warmed oceans will expand, and not on contributions from the melting of ice now on land.
> 
> Other scientists have recently reported evidence that the glaciers and ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic could flow seaward far more quickly than estimated in the past, and they have proposed that the risks to coastal areas could be much more imminent. But the climate change panel is forbidden by its charter to enter into speculation, and so could not include such possible instabilities in its assessment.


 
Note that: "their estimates ... were based mainly on how much the warmed oceans will expand, _and not on contributions from the melting of ice now on land_[...] But the climate change panel is forbidden by its charter to enter into speculation, and so it could not include such possible instabilities in its aseessment" (emphasis mine). In other words, that isn't even being factored in; if those other warnings are even partially correct, that rather makes it even more grim, wouldn't you say?

As for the "So now act, the ball's back in your court"... pardon me if I'm none to sanguine about the outcome here. Experience leads me to take a rather dim view of our "leaders'" abilities to behave in a sane, reasoned, rational manner, perhaps especially of late.....

I'm sorry. I've posted several things this week in the other thread on global warming, concerning this report, and the response to it... and, in the words of John Adams in *1776*: "Oh, Abigail, I have such a desire to knock heads together."


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 3, 2007)

Another quality sound bite, courtesy of the Bush administration. And, of course, you gotta savour this one: "Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who has called the idea of dangerous human-driven warming a hoax, issued a news release headed 'Corruption of Science' that rejected the report as 'a political document.'"

We'll send him a fruit basket and a get well card after Oklahoma becomes an uninhabitable stretch of hardpan desert.

According to the findings of the panel, it looks like we still have a fighting chance at reversing this. I remain skeptical after considering the factors of America's significant contribution to the problem (we are only 5% of the world's population, yet generate 25% of its greenhouse gas emissions - more than any other nation) and how many of our countrymen stubbornly hold the same convictions as Mr. Inhofe or are still undecided - in complete denial of the facts.


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 3, 2007)

Yes... I think I was probably editing to include some of the other comments (accidentally hit the return button before I was ready to post the first time), as well as some of my responses...

And also, I forgot to thank you for posting this one, Curt. I'm seeing red about this whole issue right now, but the lapse of courtesy should be amended, nonetheless. So thank you...


----------



## littlemissattitude (Feb 3, 2007)

I'm in the midst of reading a book right now called _The Republican War on Science_, by Chris Mooney.  There's quite a bit in there about Mr. Inhofe.  This guy is a real piece of work.

On page 84 of the book, Mooney writes about a given by Mr. Inhofe on 28 July 2003 on the floor of the Senate, one that was "well over an hour in length and complete with a moving picture show of colorful charts and diagrams, directly challenging the conclusions of mainstream climate science."  According to Mooney, Inhofe ended his speech this way:



> The claim that global warming is caused my manmade emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science.  With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?  It sure sounds like it.


I did love the one climate scientist's response to Inhofe's speech, also reported on page 84 of Mooney's book: "It's the kind of thing you write Monty Python skits about."  I think that might say it all.

As does the fact that on page 85 and following, Mooney details how Inhofe invoked the names of several mainstream scientists as supporting his take on climate change and global warming, and how two of those scientists publicly took the senator to task for "severely", as Mooney characterizes it, misrepresenting their work.

I'm only about a third of the way through Mooney's book...I'm having to take it slow becuase the sheer idiocy of some of the people he writes about frustrates me so much that I have to put it down frequently so that my poor head doesn't explode...but I would surely recommend it to anyone who has been following the global warming issue.  It isn't the only issue he addresses here, because conservative politicians and other conservatives, most of them Republican, have been trying to discredit science and scientists on a number of fronts for a long time.  But he does cover the history of the issue in some detail and in a very readable way.


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 3, 2007)

And now this:

Global warming debate shifts to costs - Yahoo! News

The story is from AP (again), by H. Josef Hebert, titled "Global warming debate shifts to costs", and datelined Fri., Jan. 2, 2007:



> As lawmakers squabble over the details in a half dozen approaches to reducing the flow of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases from power plants, cars and factories, an overriding political worry hangs over the process: cost and who will foot the bill.
> 
> "The debate has clearly shifted from a battle over the science to fighting over the scope and design of the solution," says Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a private bipartisan advocacy group on the country's future direction on energy.
> 
> ...


 
Now, that's just dandy. *sigh* I understand the need to watch costs, I really do. But the reason we're in this bloody fix is because they've resisted the evidence that's been mounting for decades, instead of focusing R&D into finding alternatives, dammit! It's not like this hasn't been an issue that's just popped up; it's been bruited about at least since the 1940s! And if companies can "ignore the emission caps altogether", then what the deuce is the point?As anyone who has paid bills late knows, you delay, you have penalties. Well, these are the penalties to be paid for futzing around on this for the past 50+ years, people. And I don't think they've quite got it through their heads that physical laws aren't exactly creditors you can bargain with. (Oh, and if they're right, and this is connected to the more severe storms, then a part of the price being paid -- partof which has already been paid -- is not in money, but in one hell of a lot of human lives. Sorta makes that comment about the economy not being something to be experimented with -- as if they didn't do that all the time to support their particular economic agendas anyway -- rather hollow in comparison, in these ears.)

Well, it's been said before that stupidity is a capital offense. The piper isn't knocking at the door any longer, he's using a bloody great battering-ram ... the knocking sorta stopped some time since. And still they squabble. Pah. If they'd got off their duffs 20, 30, 40 years ago and done something (after all, _how_ long have we known such pollutants were harmful, even if we weren't certain about global warming?) then things would be different. But taking the time now to try to find new ways of doing things before actively changing things just ain't an option, people. That could well take decades, and we just ain't got that kinda time to waste any longer.

Excuse me. I think I'm going to go be ill for a while....


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 3, 2007)

littlemissattitude said:


> I'm in the midst of reading a book right now called _The Republican War on Science_, by Chris Mooney.  There's quite a bit in there about Mr. Inhofe.  This guy is a real piece of work.
> 
> On page 84 of the book, Mooney writes about a given by Mr. Inhofe on 28 July 2003 on the floor of the Senate, one that was "well over an hour in length and complete with a moving picture show of colorful charts and diagrams, directly challenging the conclusions of mainstream climate science." According to Mooney, Inhofe ended his speech this way:
> 
> ...



So, we can count you in for the fruit basket and card?

Yes, that's a really good book on the subject! Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention, however, with one proviso - I think it should come with the following health advisory: "The subject matter contained within may cause nausea, headaches and high blood pressure in some people with common sense and/or a basic understanding of scientific principles."


----------



## Urien (Feb 3, 2007)

Logically the first and easiest thing to be addressed (IMV) is a non-polluting car/vehicle. It strikes me that this has environmental and strategic benefits. 

If we can put a man on the moon, and create atomic bombs then surely a wee electric/hydrogen/renewable low or non-polluting car should not be beyond us.

Beyond that scrubbers on factories/power plants. And then relatively simple things like solar panels on the roofs of every new build, and an economic incentive for industrial facilities and eventually homes to retrofit them.

Cost is a very real issue, an intangible threat many years out in the future is not much of a spur to limited lifespan/somebody else will do it humans. It's not in our psychology. This is exemplified by people who do not save any money for old age... which they know with certainty will come.

The next step is Russia/China/India/Brazil and other poorer countries. "Yeah we'll worry about emissions when everybody has electric power in their homes"... This is much harder a costly trade off for them is trading off a lot more than a few dollars.

On the new-emerging mega economies an answer is much harder... and there are so many of them developing so fast.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Feb 3, 2007)

Curt Chiarelli said:


> So, we can count you in for the fruit basket and card?



Oh, absolutely, especially since I am half Okie after all, my mother having been born there.

From the second article j. d. linked to:


> A growing number of businesses — including executives of 10 large corporations — recently have embraced aggressive measures to cap carbon dioxide emissions, arguing that climate change must be addressed and the consequences will be economically severe if nothing is done.



I think I commented on this earlier in another thread, and I think that this is key.  If some of the corporations that are going to have to make changes that will cost them a pretty huge chunk of change are coming around to the idea that it _is_ something they will have to do, I think that is a pretty good indication that the evidence is, indeed, unequivocal that global warming is happening and that human activity is causing it.

The fact that others are refusing to admit that, or are unwilling to spend the money necessary to reduce emissions, just speaks to their greed.  After all, we are talking, in many cases, about companies where top executive are paid _millions of dollars per year_, money to which they seem to believe they are entitled.  They are afraid that if their companies enact measures to curb emissions, they might have to take a pay cut.  I just wonder what good they think all that money will do them, or the families that will inherit it, when the earth is essentially unliveable because they didn't take action.

I truly believe that George W. Bush won't go down in history (if there is anyone left in a few hundred or thousand years to read that history) so much as the idiot who conducted a stupid war in Iraq, but more as the idiot who refused to do anything about global warming.  As stupid and irrational as I think our continuing involvement in Iraq is, in the larger scheme of things it is just a minor thing beside continuing to allow multinational corporations to run roughshod over the environment we all depend on for life and sustenance.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 3, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> And now this:
> 
> Global warming debate shifts to costs - Yahoo! News
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, I think I'll be joining you soon. My bulls**t gag threshold limit has been exceeded for one day!

Ah yes, first comes the denials, next the dithering, and now comes the poor-mouthing phase of our regularly scheduled debacle - nothing unusual when it comes time for effective, constructive leadership on Capitol Hill. Since our esteemed representatives don't have a clue where to find the funds necessary to combat global warming may I suggest a source? 

The Iraq War chest. 

We've squandered approximately *$350 billion* away on this exercise in futility, corporate greed and national vanity with an estimated long-term projected cost of *$1.3 trillion*. A war that economist James Galbraith refers to as a “dagger in the heart of the U.S. economy” with an estimated cost for a 3 year occupation of $3,415 for every U.S. household.

(As if one's stomach isn't already skipping rope with one's intestinal tract, here's a nifty PDF file for anyone who wishes to know the cold hard facts and figures on the Iraq War, current until September of 2006, courtesy of the Institute for Policy Studies: http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/cow9-06.pdf)

As I recall, most of our representatives were quite sanguine about this unnecessary war and the false spector of Islamic terrorism lurking in every American community. They were more than happy to cede Bush unprecedented expansion of Executive powers and spending limits while giving away our Civil Rights in the bargain to tilt at windmills and bogeymen . . . . _but somehow they aren't displaying the same level of enthusiasm for positive action on a real and impeding threat like global warming_.

Why?

To de-construct the issue and examine why this is happening we need to look at the patterns of America's government spending. Our government has 2 major breakdowns in its budget: military and social policy. If one spends _too_ much on social policy to improve the economic welfare and quality of life for its constituency the citizens become resistant to abuse, control and manipulation because they are wealthy enough to have the recreational time to pursue education and a meaningful involvement in the political system. However, if government diverts a major portion of tax revenues into military spending they can torque up the pressure on its own citizenry, keeping them poor, subjugated, negative, de-politized and ignorant. 

To peel back another layer, government is just the puppet and the corporation the puppetmaster. The corporation's compulsion to dominate our world with the same level of pervasiveness as the Catholic Church during the Medieval Era is instrumental in understanding how we've come to this crisis point in our history. All of these misplaced priorities are in the service of consolidating corporate power. So what if tens or even hundreds of thousands or even millions of average citizens are killed in the process of their acquisition and maintenance of wealth and power? The Board of Directors and their lackeys are arrogant enough to believe that their money will provide a safe bulwark between themselves and any kind of disaster, in whatever form it may come. They also employ the usual psychological defense mechanisms to shield themselves against any kind of guilt or personal repsonsibility for their own part in this unfolding tragedy.


----------



## Dave (Feb 4, 2007)

You know, the science is not as clear cut as it seems. It can still be argued that the rises in CO2 are volcanic and not man-made, or that the rise in global temperatures is not related to the CO2 rise, but for some other reason such as the suns output. It is more and more, an argument that does not hold water, and I am, and have always been in the man-made, greenhouse effect camp. But you have to see how difficult it is for people who have made their careers and reputations in the other camp to now turn about and say "I was completely wrong." They are bound to carry on until the bitter end and continue to claim it is all a great hoax. 

The other point made is the contribution made by the industrialised world versus the developing countries. Britiain contributes about 2% of global CO2 emissions. Easy for us to say then, "it is of no consequence what we do, so why bother at all?"

But, we have 1% of the worlds population, so in effect we are pushing twice our weight. As just pointed out in a previous post, the USA have 5% of the world population but 25% CO2 emissions. They are pushing 5x their weight!

If you add to that the fact the heavy energy-hungry industries are moving to the developing world and away from the developed, the figures look even worse. The developed world ought to be able to cut CO2 emissions just by standing still; closing down old fashioned factories and power stations, and yet Bush still feels that a target of a 10% cut in real terms would be an achievement worth boasting about.

Another point is that we should set an example to the developing world. Rather than shift our pollution there instead, we should give them the most recent technology and help them cut there CO2 emissions. Rather than export our out of date dirty technology we should give them the most recent for free and let them skip those steps in it's development. That is expensive, it makes the developed world uncompetitive, it gives away our edge, but it has to be done if we want to make any impact globally.

There is also much said that setting limits will make our industry uncompetitive. Raising taxes would be unproductive as it will not allow companies to invest that money on the new technology that is required. I only studied economics a little, but prices are very much linked to demand. When taxes raise the price of something, that is the biggest incentive to investing in a cheaper way that can be found. Without targets there is absolutely no reason for companies to not continue exactly as they have before, and not investing the profits.

Finally, I still think we have not grasped the full implications of this whole scenario. Cutting greenhouse gases is not just a case of leaving your car at home and cycling, turning the gas down, or not flying on holiday. The suggestion of solar panels on every new house is a good one, but these ideas are really only a drop in the ocean. The most potent greenhouse gas is methane, and it is well known that the huge herds of cows we keep contribute more methane any any other source. Is everyone now going to become vegetarian? Every time concrete is poured, CO2 is released from the cement. Are we going to stop building? There are other examples like that. Our whole way of life is in need of fundamental change. I don't think people are anywhere ready for that. I know I'm not, I like my convenient life as it is. No one will really be ready for that kind of change until it affects them personally and directly. By the time "Oklahoma becomes an uninhabitable stretch of hard pan desert" it will unfortunately be too late.

I love the quotes and references to Galileo and John Adams. It would be funny if it were not so serious! I don't know the solution, but at least it seems we are getting closer to the place where one might be possible.


----------



## Daniel Hetberg (Feb 5, 2007)

Even if we stopped raising our CO2 emissions today; simply by virtue of all third world countries raising their standard of living, and thus energy consumption, the greenhouse effect is just starting. We must reduce our emissions and energy consumption *drastically*, as in oh, at least 50% or so downwards, and make the necessary technology available to everybody, otherwise we or at the latest our immediate children will suffer the terrible consequences.


----------



## Nesacat (Feb 5, 2007)

*unequivocal* - admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion ...

Maybe we need to include a dictionary with the fruit basket and card.

It has been pointed out to me that we might also need to include a kindergarten teacher along the lines of Ms Wormwood.


----------



## mosaix (Feb 5, 2007)

Dave said:


> It can still be argued that the rises in CO2 are volcanic and not man-made,



No it can't Dave. Volcanoes produce very little carbon dioxide. They produce lots of sulphides that whilst in the atmosphere actually reflect the suns rays - causing _global cooling.
_


----------



## mosaix (Feb 5, 2007)

Curt Chiarelli said:


> So, we can count you in for the fruit basket and card?



And me Curt.


----------



## mosaix (Feb 5, 2007)

An interesting editorial in this week's New Scientist (3rd Feb). It highlights a report - *Atmosphere Of Pressure* - published by two US pressure groups the_ Government Accountibilty Project_ and _Union of Concerned Scientists_. 

They report on attempts by the White House to muzzle leading climate researchers across seven federally funded bodies from the Environmental Protection Agency to the US Geological Survey. They include denying media access to researchers, delaying interviews until the media lose interest, blocking press releases, changing press releases by injecting uncertainty, and removing "hot button" terms such as global warming. The worst examples involve changing scientific information in advice to members of Congress.

The editorial ends:

The Bush administration has boasted that it does not follow a "reality-based" agenda. Portraying a distorted view of climate change may have served it well in the short term. But the laws of physics and chemistry that govern climate change  cannot be eluded for ever. They are the ultimate arbiters of reality and ignoring them will serve nobody well in the long term.

Amen to that.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 6, 2007)

mosaix said:


> No it can't Dave. Volcanoes produce very little carbon dioxide. They produce lots of sulphides that whilst in the atmosphere actually reflect the suns rays - causing _global cooling.
> _



Absolutely correct Mosaix! 

An interesting example that illustrates your point and one that had far-reaching worldwide ramifications - even upon the field of horror literature(!) - is the 5 April, 1815 eruption of Mount Tomboro in Indonesia. So much volcanic ash was thrown into the air that it created a multitude of atmospheric disruptions: some aesthetically pleasing like the fiery sunsets, with most others far less amusing, like the _exceptionally cold, wet weather that  Europe received, causing flooding and massive crop failures_. 

In fact, the weather conditions during 1816 were so consistently miserable that it was referred to as "The Year Without a Summer". As it so happens, Lord Byron, Dr. John Polidori, Percy Bysshe Shelley and his new wife, Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin were vacationing in Lake Geneva, Switzerland that summer. Had the weather been more accomodating instead of the torrential rainstorms that kept them cloistered indoors, conjuring tales of terror to entertain themselves, they might have been boating and picnicing instead of giving birth to 2 seminal classics of the genre: Mary Shelley's_ Frankenstein_ and Polidori's mediocre, _The Vampyre _which later went on to inspire and inform Bram Stoker's _Dracula_ 80 years later


----------



## Dave (Feb 6, 2007)

mosaix said:


> Volcanoes produce very little carbon dioxide. They produce lots of sulphides that whilst in the atmosphere actually reflect the suns rays - causing _global cooling.
> _


Total global release of CO2 has been estimated at 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes, but is difficult to measure and could be higher. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150x, so I suppose I have to agree with you. But atmosheric CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today and that had to come from somewhere other than anthropogenic sources.
As for the Sulphides and particulates causing global cooling, as Curt said, that's well documented.


----------

