Time Magazine Article on the Environment

[wvrevy]

Don't let the people in charge of this country fool you into thinking that global warming is something your grandkids' grandkids' may have to worry about. The simple scientific fact is that we may well see massive global change in our lifetimes if something doesn't change in a hurry...and it may already be too late.

Be Worried. Be VERY Worried.

Don't let politicians tell you what to believe. Listen to the scientists that know what they are talking about. NASA's own top climatologist is in agreement with this prognosis...and the Bush administration hired somebody to censor his reports and "spin" them so that they made less of a threat. (And no, I'm neither making that up nor embellishing...they actually hired a guy - with a forged diploma, no less - to censor scientific reports.)

 

[shrubber]

I am constantly amazed by the arrogance of people who assume that they have the ability to control the weather of an entire planet.
Be afraid?
'fraid not.

 

[In a hurry]

I saw a report on 60 minutes about this a couple of weeks ago. It was interesting, and they showed the changed reports, but it seemed to me, that what was taken out of the reports were the suppositions. I think that if the report were all science, and not 1/2 opinion, that the information would be much more difficult to censor, etc. To turn everything into the end of the world tends to make people pretty callous to true possible problems.

 

[jgmklmhem]

So far approximately 166 billion dollars have been spent/lost due to the Kyoto Protocol (not including research spending). This to only save a potential of 0.07 degrees C by the year 2050. While there is actually no way to measure the absolute mean temperature of the earth within that many significant digits. Both skeptics and advocates have generally agreed on this number.

 

[dadto1]

Blah, blah. Don't post a Bush bashing thread and hide behind Global warming!

 

[wvrevy]

1 - It's not the arrogance of one person. It's the ignorance of many. We're talking about the effect of billions of people, not just one person, or even one society. Humans are directly responsible for the extinction of several species. What makes you so sure we can't have an effect on the atmosphere?

2 - They edited his reports for content. Here is an excerpt from the 60 minutes interview:

"We have to, in the next 10 years, get off this exponential curve and begin to decrease the rate of growth of CO2 emissions," Hansen explains. "And then flatten it out. And before we get to the middle of the century, we’ve got to be on a declining curve.

"If that doesn't happen in 10 years, then I don’t think we can keep global warming under one degree Celsius and that means we’re going to, that there’s a great danger of passing some of these tipping points. If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You can’t tie a rope around the ice sheet. You can’t build a wall around the ice sheets. It will be a situation that is out of our control."

But that's not a situation you'll find in one federal report submitted for review. Government scientists wanted to tell you about the ice sheets, but before a draft of the report left the White House, the paragraph on glacial melt and flooding was crossed out and this was added: "straying from research strategy into speculative findings and musings here."

That is content, backed by scientific evidence, not opinion. Read the rest of it for yourself: Rewriting the science

3 - It wouldn't be a "Bush-bashing" thread if he didn't play politics with scientific inquiry. But that's ok...I understand that you are incapable of listening to anything that might actually portray boy-wonder as anything other than perfect. Just go back to Fox News and their staged press conferences ("Mr. President...My question is, I think you're doing a super job. So why do all liberals hate America?" )

 

[jimmiej]

I am constantly amazed by the arrogance of people who assume that they have the ability to control the weather of an entire planet.
Be afraid?
'fraid not.

Dittohead? High five!

 

[Grandpa Simpson]

First, ABC News, then Time... and right on schedule. Spring is busting out all over and can summer be far behind. It's the best time to begin spreading fear and angst over "global warming." I sure could have used some of that inevitable "global warming" this past winter to reduce my heating bills! Why is it never around when you really need it?

 

[wvrevy]

I rest my case. People think that, just because it was cold last Tuesday, Global Warming must be a myth.

Hmmm...let's see...do I listen to the scientists or the "dittoheads" ?

 

[Grandpa Simpson]

I just find it interesting and not too coincidental that reports, new stories, magazine articles about global warming never seem to appear during the colder months of the year; they only start coming out of the closet when temperatures begin to moderate in spring and reach an amazing cresendo during the "dog days" of summer.

It's not that I don't believe there may be a problem. I just find the timing of all this quite intriguing.

 

[CheshireVal]

It's been my experience that trying to start an intelligent discussion about environmental issues on this board is truly an exercise in futility.

Too many people want to politicize it, and no one really wants to face the fact that this is a HUGE issue that affects every single one of us, from liberal to conservative.

Very frustrating.

 

[wvrevy]

And another article, this one from the London Times:

London Under Water by 2100

As for the "timing" of the articles...maybe it's just that it's the only time you are paying attention. Go to google, click on "News", and do a search for "Global Warming." You'll find articles going back for months, with hardly a day exempted, from all over the world.

 

[Bob Slydell]

What I hate about articles like the one posted is that they never seem to present any real-life solutions that the average person can actually do to help. It always seems to be the world is ending and {fill in the species name} is going to be extinct and it's all the politicians' fault. That's usually the end of the article -- no solutions, no suggestions, just doom and gloom and blame.

 

[jgmklmhem]

I don't think most people see Global Warming as a myth. The contention lies in the assumption that we as humans have much of an impact on whether it will continue to occur and if we have the ability to prevent it. As I posted above the Kyoto Protocal assuming full implication would only short the increase by 0.07 degrees C (which is not even a measurable number when talking about global temperature) and already 166 billion have been spent/lost and we are only a little over a year in.

I also think your assumptions about science being black and white are wrong as well. Scientists go for the money and prestige too. Yes there are facts out there to say the earth is warming. The dispute again arises from our impact. Many scientists claim we have little to none, others say we have a great impact. Who is right? Both conclusions were brought about by scientific fact. When one volcano out-gassing puts out about as much emissions as the human race could over 5-10 years then it would seem our impact is minimal. Also when those who disagree with the theory we have a great impact cannot even get their side heard in Chemical and Engineering News due to the editors admitted bias (sat in the room when he admitted this one to us) in this area then we as the public even the scientific community might not be getting the whole story.

 

[Bravosntha2g]

I could really care less about the environment other than protecting the space of animals.

This planet is going to be hit by an asteroid sooner rather than later. That is why it doesn't really matter and the whole environment debate is incredibly short-term.

One thing I can DEFINITELY agree with Bush on is more funding for NASA. If we wish to continue as a species we are going to need to colonize other areas and that starts with exploring Mars. This is a whole lot more important than global warming.

 

[mrsltg]

My problem with the entire issue is the political nature of it. That, and the disputed science, of course.

1. We may be in a cycle of "global" warming. Who's to say it hasn't happened before or that it's not a natural part of the earth and it's climate? Of course, it's much easier to say, "it's all our fault and if we don't change x by x we're all doomed." No one wants to discuss this, though. No one wants to accept the fact that human beings and our time on this planet may well be limited. What we are witnessing may be a result of nature.

2. All scientists don't agree. Most scientists don't agree. There is considerable debate as to what is going on climate wise.

3. 30 years ago "science" was sure we were in the grip of another ice age. We were all going to die. An ice age. I'll get my skiis (now they'll be water instead of snow - I wish someone would make up their "sky-is-falling" mind!)

Finally, I recommend everyone watch Penn & Teller BS. They have a show that deals directly with this topic. Very interesting.

 

[wvrevy]

Bob - The problem is that this is a societal problem. This isn't an instance where one person can make a huge difference. What needs to be done is for society to make massive changes (beginning with the internal combustion engine, but not ending there). All the taglines about "one person makes a difference" are just so much noise. This takes leadership...something the world is sorely lacking at the moment.

jgm - So, what would you suggest? If humans are having no impact on the environment - something I'm not sure anyone would agree to - then making sweeping changes to our ways of lives will not do much good (other than providing hundreds of thousands of jobs, billions injected into the economy, and, of course, actually cleaning the environment even further). But if we simply ignore the warnings and continue blithely burning up all the oil we can get our hands on...what happens if you and people that want to ignore the problem are wrong? Besides, the top scientists in the world nearly all disagree with your theory. Why should they be ignored in favor of the few who appear to have political motivations?

 

[wvrevy]

My problem with the entire issue is the political nature of it. That, and the disputed science, of course.

1. We may be in a cycle of "global" warming. Who's to say it hasn't happened before or that it's not a natural part of the earth and it's climate? Of course, it's much easier to say, "it's all our fault and if we don't change x by x we're all doomed." No one wants to discuss this, though. No one wants to accept the fact that human beings and our time on this planet may well be limited. What we are witnessing may be a result of nature.

2. All scientists don't agree. Most scientists don't agree. There is considerable debate as to what is going on climate wise.

3. 30 years ago "science" was sure we were in the grip of another ice age. We were all going to die. An ice age. I'll get my skiis (now they'll be water instead of snow - I wish someone would make up their "sky-is-falling" mind!)

Finally, I recommend everyone watch Penn & Teller BS. They have a show that deals directly with this topic. Very interesting.

1 - It may be, it may not. If you say "not", then what do we do if you're wrong? Are we so attached to oil that we find excuses to ignore warning signs? Sure, we may not be able to do anything. But we may be able to. Why sit back and do nothing? Pure laziness?

2 - Um...no, there isn't. The planet is warming and the ice caps are melting. There IS no debate over that.

3 - I suggest you try picking up a book instead of watching Penn and Teller. Yeah, I've seen the episode. Penn and Teller are comedians. Not scientists.

 

[mrsltg]

1 - It may be, it may not. If you say "not", then what do we do if you're wrong? Are we so attached to oil that we find excuses to ignore warning signs? Sure, we may not be able to do anything. But we may be able to. Why sit back and do nothing? Pure laziness?

2 - Um...no, there isn't. The planet is warming and the ice caps are melting. There IS no debate over that.

3 - I suggest you try picking up a book instead of watching Penn and Teller. Yeah, I've seen the episode. Penn and Teller are comedians. Not scientists.

Not so much. When you quoted me, you didn't actually address my third point. You instead, conveniently, changed it to suit your point. Address the ice age crisis of a mere, in terms of earth history, 30 years ago. What happened to that? Suddenly everything just became too warm?

# 2. Yes, there is debate over what is happening and why. There is considerable debate. The climate may well be warming - now. Is this a new trend? Is this something that is natural? Is this something man made? Is this supposed to happen? Just because it's not beneficial to human life does not mean it's not natural. People are really egotistical.

 

[jgmklmhem]

jgm - So, what would you suggest? If humans are having no impact on the environment - something I'm not sure anyone would agree to - then making sweeping changes to our ways of lives will not do much good (other than providing hundreds of thousands of jobs, billions injected into the economy, and, of course, actually cleaning the environment even further). But if we simply ignore the warnings and continue blithely burning up all the oil we can get our hands on...what happens if you and people that want to ignore the problem are wrong? Besides, the top scientists in the world nearly all disagree with your theory. Why should they be ignored in favor of the few who appear to have political motivations?

Do you not think those top scientists don't have political motivations as well? Do you not think the journals that publish scientific material are not politcally motivated as well. These top scientists are that way due to their publications. Believe me when I say what gets published is very politically motivated. I also never said humans do not effect the environment but climate change of the entire earth I am not convinced. When as I have said before 166 billion has been spent in just one year and the overall goal is to just reduce the temp by 0.07 C by 2050 I see us as having no real impact at all. Sure we should move away from gas, coal and oil for environmental as well as supply reasons, and Bush has actually put more money towards alternative fuel research than any other President, but the technology just is not there to be feasible for all just yet.