After IPCC, 26 scientists speak on global warming
Where glaciers melt, they sometimes leave large boulders behind.
What these scientists want to tell you – right now – about global warming.
David Easterling … “global warming is real”
I’d just like to leave the public with the thought that global warming is real. We have certainly seen increases in temperature over the past hundred years, and especially in the last 30 years. The scientific community is at least in large part convinced that it’s mainly due to human activities. And it’s something that I think needs to be taken seriously.
David Easterling is Chief of the Scientific Services Division at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, a contributing author to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second and Third Assessment Reports, and a lead author for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report being released this year.
Elizabeth Holland … “no longer uncertain”
I’m speaking here from my personal scientific view – not as an author of an IPCC chapter, but my personal view. My view is that most of us scientists are now convinced that global warming is happening. We are now convinced that the most likely cause of global warming is human activity. And we are no longer uncertain about whether the climate is warming. We are actually quite certain that the climate is warming, and we are certain that human activity is the cause.
Elisabeth Holland is a Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. She was lead author of Chapter 7 of the IPCC report, which outlined connections between changes in Earth’s climate and biogeochemistry.
Adam Sobel … “happening now”
I am a climate scientist, and would like to say this.
Global warming is real, and is happening now. There are details we don’t understand, but the big picture is very clear. The evidence has become overwhelming.
Adam Sobel is an Associate Professor in the Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics and in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
Amber Soja … “a reality we must address”
Global warming is a current reality and it is driven, in part, by humankind. All but a handful of climate–related scientists, worldwide, are convinced of this reality.
Temperature increases and warming–induced change are progressing faster than had been predicted in some regions, suggesting a potential non–linear rapid response to changes in climate, as opposed to the predicted slow linear response to climate change. The greatest increases in warming are predicted to occur and are occurring in northern hemisphere upper latitudes, and evidence exists in melting glaciers, longer growing seasons, larger and more severe fire seasons, and changes in species assemblages at upper altitudes and latitudes.
There is currently much to be learned about the interactive processes that force and feedback within our climate system, and in this venue, there is much debate. This is not a gloom and doom prognostication, but a reality that we must mindfully and responsibly address today. Climate change is not some future possibility. Climate change is apparent today.
Amber Soja is a research scientist with the National Institute of Aerospace, currently resident in the Climate Dynamics branch of NASA Langley Research Center.
Waleed Abdalati … “climate can adversely affect human society”
Climate is changing. It always has, and it always will. What is different now as compared to past human history is that we are at a point where we humans are having a significant global impact on our Earth environment. We can’t say for certain that those impacts will bring dire consequences , nor can we say that those impacts will be minor. The balance of the evidence, however, suggests that climate will change in ways that can significantly and adversely impact society, and the seriousness of those impacts is going to depend on three things:
1. the magnitude of the changes
2. the rate at which they occur, and
3. our ability to anticipate and prepare for them.
Scientists are working hard to improve our ability to anticipate those changes, and effective policies can help reduce the magnitudes and rates of change. The longer longer we as a society wait to take meaningful steps to adapt to and mitigate climate change, the greater the level or sacrifice will be to meet those challenges. For this reason everyone should be paying attention to climate change and discussing it in real terms, not exaggerated arguments targeted at trying to make a particular point. The more literate the general public is on this issue and the more society as a whole understands the nature of climate change, the more likely we as a society can work to achieve solutions to the climate change challenge.
The bottom line is, I don’t think we should be afraid, but we should all be very concerned.
Waleed Abdalati is head of the Cryospheric Sciences Program at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
M. Granger Morgan … “we need deep cuts in emissions”
I want to say two things.
First, the main cause of climate change comes from carbon dioxide produced when we humans burn coal, oil and natural gas.
Second, unlike conventional pollutants that stay in the atmosphere a few hours or days, once carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere much of it stays there for a century. That means that to reduce concentrations (which are what cause warming and climate change) we’re going to have to reduce emissions by 80% or more. We need deep cuts, not just stablization of emissions.
M. Granger Morgan is head of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
Bruce Wielicki … “global warming does not mean uniform temperature change”
When you see climate signals discussed in reports like the IPCC, remember that climate scientists are basing these on the big picture, and that “global warming” does not mean uniform temperature change over the entire Earth.
The climate system is sufficiently complex that like the economic analogy: it does not do anything in a simple uniform way. So even when the global average temperature is increasing, a few places will actually be cooling.
The scientific debate is shifting from whether mankind is causing climate change (we are), to how large a change we can expect in the future, how fast climate will change, and what the regional impacts will be. In the coming decades, even regional climate change will reach levels that exceed natural variability. In some areas like the polar regions, it already has. This will be much easier for the public to understand as their own regional climate change becomes increasingly obvious. But we cannot wait that long to act. (for more, see Don’t notice climate change yet? You will.)
Bruce Wielicki of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virgina is the Principal Investigator for CERES, a project now using four instruments on two different Earth–orbiting satellites to monitor how clouds affect our climate.
Michael Mann … “false controversy”
Unfortunately, there are a number of so–called “organizations,” a lot of their funding can be traced back to fossil fuel corporations. They’re often not much more than a p.o. box and an individual or two who are behind them. They have been paid money to manufacture false controversy. They’ve been doing that for years. That has been a particularly profound influence here in the United States. That’ll probably continue to go on for some time.
I’m pleased, and many of us are pleased that Exxon–Mobil has announced that they are no longer going to provide funding for many of these organizations that they were providing to manufacture this false controversy. This was actually detailed in an extensive report by the Union of Concerned Scientists that was issued about a month ago, where they detailed all of the unfortunate ways that Exxon–Mobil had been funding to cloud the public understanding of the science. Well, it looks like they’re backing away from that now. But I don’t think that that means that we’re not going to see some efforts of that sort again, even with this next IPCC report. So we shouldn’t be surprised that there will be some talking heads out there, probably most of them financed by industry, to try to confuse the public’s understanding of the report, to try to raise false criticisms of the conclusions that have been drawn. We’re going to see some of that. There’s no question. So it’s important for us to keep in mind that we’re probably seeing the last gasps of this sort of disinformation effort that is probably in its tail end now that the science has become ever more strong as time has gone on.
Michael Mann, professor of meteorology and geosciences at Pennsylvania State University and director of the university’s Earth System Science Center.
Alan R. Townsend … “no longer on the distant horizon”
Global climate change is no longer just a threat on the distant horizon. It is with us today, and it is already affecting the lives of people around the world. We can do something about it, but now is the time for nations everywhere to begin those efforts in earnest. The more we delay, the more we increase the probability of abrupt and truly significant changes in climate that would have enormous social and economic consequences.
Alan R. Townsend is the Associate Director for the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
Helen Amanda Fricker … “changing habits”
Yes, global warming is very, very real. It is actually happening and is not a myth. The ramifications around the world are being seen all the time, and this will only get worse unless the major countries contributing to the problem reduce their carbon dioxide emissions significantly. While people are not believing it and not doing anything to change, the problem is getting worse. By the time everyone is convinced, it will be too late. It takes effort to change habits, and I think that is why there are so many people refusing to change.
Changing habits starts at home, and one simple way I could see the average household in the US reducing their energy consumption is to start line–drying their washing instead of using tumble dryers. Millions of people in Europe and Australia hang their washing out to dry, in their back yard or patio. In fact, in Australia the “Hill’s Hoist” washing line in the back yard is commonplace. The same is not true in the US. Here, for some reason, seeing your neighbor’s washing is not tasteful or acceptable, and it is actually forbidden to hang out washing in some places. This needs to change. In some parts of the US, such as California, the conditions are perfect for drying clothes outside. The air is dry and the sun is warm, sometimes it actually takes less time than in the dryer, and consumes no energy at all!
Helen Amanda Fricker is research geophysicist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Bruce A. Boe … “we are stewards”
The Earth’s climate is changing. The planet appears to be warming, perhaps as much as 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 40 or 50 years, according to the newest report by the IPCC. According to the report, this projected change is occurring primarily because of human activities.
Change of any kind, warming or cooling, will certainly have impacts on the world’s weather and economies. Those impacts will be negative in some areas, and positive in others. We humans are the only species on the planet capable of causing such changes, at least so rapidly. It is our responsibility to be good stewards of this planet which we call home.
At the same time, we must recognize that the Earth’s climate has always changed. The “Little Ice Age” which occurred between 1300 and 1850, is a very recent example. Some 12,000 years ago, a mere blink in geologic time, glaciers covered much of the northern hemisphere.
Furthermore, it is well established that the irradiance of our sun, often termed “the solar constant”, is not completely constant, after all.
The bottom line is this: We humans need to be the best stewards of the planet we can, but at the same time should recognize that control of the climate ultimately does not rest with us. The climate has always changed, and will always change. It is absurd to think, even for a second, that the climate can somehow be “steadied” to our liking.
We must also be aware that there are many sources of carbon dioxide in addition to the combustion of fossil fuels. Each of us exhales approximately 1.2 ounces of carbon dioxide per hour, if we choose to breathe. Just for the United States, this is an additional 270,000 tons of CO2 added to our atmosphere per day!
So what should we do? Plant more trees. Drive less. Recycle more. And keep breathing.
Bruce A. Boe is Director of Meteorology at Weather Modification, Inc. He is a present member and past chair of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification.
Isaac Held … “droughts … environmental justice”
I am most concerned about the changes in tropical rainfall patterns that will accompany global warming, especially increased frequency and severity of droughts in underdeveloped regions that have the fewest resources to adapt to changing conditions. This is a question of “environmental justice”, with many regions of the developing world likely to be affected adversely, not due to their own actions, but as a consequence of the emissions of greenhouse gases by the developed world.
Isaac Held is a senior research scientist at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
W. H. Berger … “sea level rise”
The history of ice ages for the last 600,000 years suggests that a sea level rise of three feet per century occurred about ten percent of the time during warm periods such as we live in. And there was no excess greenhouse effect to push the system. Thus, to a geologist familiar with ice–age climates, a global sealevel rise distinctly exceeding three feet in a century would hold no surprise whatever.
W. H. Berger is a professor of oceanography in the Geosciences Research Division in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California, San Diego.
Norm Ellstrand … “I am changing my lifestyle”
As a geneticist whose research addresses the risks of plant biotechnology, people often ask me what I think is the earth’s most pressing environmental crisis. The answer is a no–brainer, “global warming”. It surprises folks because they are waiting for something about genetics. But for the past decade I have been concerned about global warming. It’s so easy to see what a nasty legacy we are handing to our grandchildren. But I don’t just worry, I’m doing something about it. I am changing my lifestyle. I asked my family to donate to tree planting programs instead of buying me birthday presents. I am a commuter cyclist, enjoying hundreds of carbon–free miles a month! We have replaced as many lightbulbs at home with compact fluorescents. Every little decision counts. Do you really need that plastic bag? Finally, I am giving up teaching my genetics for non–majors class so that I can teach a science–of–food class —– a venue where it is more appropriate to sneak in a lecture or two on global warming.
Norman C. Ellstrand is a professor of genetics at the University of California Riverside.
Bill Patzert … “skeptics going way of dodo bird”
The global warming skeptics are going the way of the dodo bird – to extinction. The evidence is in. We’re definitely living in a warming world and headed into unknown, dangerous territory. The future of our civilization is at stake! It’s time for each and every one of us to change wasteful habits and cut back on our energy consumption. A good start would be losing the SUV. Real men and women drive hybrids or take the bus. Let’s all think more and use less – of everything. Remember, warming is global, but solutions are local and – bottom line – individual.
Bill Patzert, scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
C. Mark Eakin … “coral reef ecosystems”
Our warming climate has already changed many of the world’s ecosystems, and will continue to affect them into the future. The first recorded mass coral bleaching event happened in 1982. As ocean temperatures have risen since then, coral bleaching and death have increased in frequency and intensity. Coral bleaching occurs when stressed corals expel the symbiotic micro–algae living in their tissues – algae that provide corals with food. Severe or prolonged high temperatures kill corals, leaving reefs devoid of key ecosystem processes and vulnerable to natural processes of erosion that break down the structures that form the basis for major food chains. When this happens over large areas— as it did in 1997–98 in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and 2005 in the Caribbean region— it has wide–reaching ecological, social, and economic impacts on ecosystems that support $375 billion annually in fish, seafood, tourism, and coastal protection worldwide. There is growing scientific evidence that it is unlikely that corals can adapt fast enough to keep pace with even the most conservative climate change projections. This means that as global temperatures rise, we expect to see more reef corals around the world bleaching and dying.
We have two means of addressing this problem: the root issue and contributing threats. Solving the root issue, of course, requires reducing oceanic warming by reducing the human contribution to greenhouse gases. However, reducing global greenhouse gas concentrations is beyond the direct control of coral reef resource managers. Instead, managers need to reduce the local environmental stresses under their control, thus increasing the resilience of coral reef ecosystems to the bleaching caused by oceanic warming. As the world continues to warm, resource managers around the globe will have to take greater actions to mitigate the impacts of climate change through local actions.
C. Mark Eakin is NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch Coordinator.
Lisa Graumlich … “national parks”
For the past 25 years, I have been doing field work at high elevations in the mountains of the Western US. I have worked in the premier national parks, including Glacier, Yellowstone, Mt. Rainier, Yosemite, and Sequoia. In all of these parks, we are seeing the fingerprint of global climate change. Glaciers are disappearing and plants, animals and insect pests are moving upslope at unprecedented rates. Our national parks can no longer be protected from human influence by building a fence or hiring park rangers. Recall that national parks are an American invention. In fact, the writer Wallace Stegner often remarked that the idea of national parks was the best idea that we ever had. It’s my fervent hope that we find the will to address global climate change in order to ensure that the parks and wild places of the West continue to delight and inspire future generations.
Lisa Graumlich is a professor and director of the School of Natural Resources at the University of Arizona.
Ken Caldeira … “can we transcend our past?”
Carbon dioxide is increasing more rapidly and to higher levels than has been experienced on Earth for perhaps 50 million years or more. The consequences of our actions will leave its imprint on the Earth for millions of years to come.
Ecosystems and organisms have not evolved to cope with such rapid change, despite the fact that these changes seem slow by our human standards. If we do not change our ways, and soon, our activities threaten the collapse of ice sheets, loss of entire ecosystems, and shifts in precipitation that could potentially initiate famines and other forms of suffering. We might be lucky, and outcomes might turn out not to be this bad, but who is in the mood to gamble?
Reversing the increasing trend in carbon dioxide emissions will take an effort on the scale of today’s military expenditures. We are willing to spend those resources when the threat is external, but will we be willing to do the same when the threat is from ourselves?
Our hunter–gatherer minds have developed to address problems involving competition and problems that are local in scale, and where planning for the future meant hoarding enough nuts to last the winter. Can we transcend our hunter–gatherer past and develop the wisdom to cooperate to address problems that are global in scale and involve time horizons of decades and longer?
Music and art show that our minds have capabilities that go far beyond what could be reasonably expected to develop out of the brutal forces of evolution. Let us demonstrate that our minds have the equally unexpected capability to solve the environmental problems facing us today.
Ken Caldeira is in the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology where scientists attempt to understand how humanity can prosper sustainably.
Kai Lee … “enlightened and active public needed”
Global climate change is a slow but now unstoppable process that will bring large changes to the natural world. Most of these, however, will not be apparent to people living in rich countries.
In order to contain the long–term damage from human–caused warming, and in order to adjust to the warmer world we are still creating, it is essential for people to make small but important changes in the way they live.
Of these, the most important is energy conservation and efficiency. This does NOT mean a poorer lifestyle necessarily. It does mean insulating one’s attic and exterior walls, using public transit when available and working for there to be better transit options, and it means supporting carbon taxes or other means of building in the real costs of climate change into the everyday economic choices people make. None of this is hard to live with, but it also does not have a strong–enough constituency, yet, to change public policy – particularly the higher charges for energy. For that reason, an enlightened and active public will be needed for the next several years (through and beyond the 2008 presidential election in the US).
We can do this, but we can’t wait for others to do it for us.
Kai N. Lee is the Rosenburg Professor of Environmental Studies at Williams College.
Ron Flick and Bob Guza … “sea level rise”
Sea level rise over the coming century, a consequence of global warming, could reduce drastically the availability of southern California beaches for recreation and protection of public and private infrastructure. If sand supplies are not greatly increased, beaches that are now narrow, with only a small strip of sand between the high tide line and cliffs or seawalls backing the beach, could disappear entirely.
Reinhard “Ron” Flick is a Research Associate at the Center for Coastal Studies, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. Robert Guza, is a Professor at the Center for Coastal Studies, Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego.
Roger Edwards … “tornadoes”
Will we have more, fewer or as many tornadoes 100 years from now? As an atmospheric scientist specializing in tornadoes, my short answer is: we simply don’t know.
As of this writing, no scientific studies solidly relate climatic global temperature trends to tornadoes. I don’t expect any such results in the near future either, because tornadoes are too small, short–lived, hard to measure and count, and too dependent on day to day, even minute to minute weather conditions.
Is it possible that any given shift in global temperature patterns may eventually change long–term tornado risk probability? Maybe, just maybe…if we make assumptions built on assumptions built on assumptions, about subtleties of regional warming (or cooling) by a few degrees, and how it might change the distribution of the four basic ingredients for tornado producing storms (for more, see Will global warming cause more tornadoes?).
Our challenge is to predict future worldwide changes in something we haven’t sharply defined, can’t even count or measure very well, and that we often can’t predict an hour from now, all based on a model that doesn’t know it exists. That “something” is a most elusive, quick and stealthy quarry: the tornado. We might meet this challenge someday, but right now we’re a long, long way from that place in science.
Roger Edwards is a meteorologist at the Storm Prediction Center of the National Weather Center in Norman, Oklahoma.
Colin Price … “worried about surprises”
The facts are that the temperatures observed today and during the last few decades are the highest they have been for at least 1000 years if not longer (we don’t have accurate data further than that). Furthermore, the concentration of greenhouse gases that are known to absorb heat emitted from the Earth’s surface are now the highest we have seen in at least 600 thousand years, and likely longer (we have no data going back further in time). If you don’t trust the temperature data, take a look outside. 95% of all mountain glaciers around the world are melting and receding. The Greenland ice sheet is dramatically losing mass (ice) due to melting, while the summer Arctic sea ice is continuously shrinking every year. (for more, see The Earth has a fever!)
What we scientists are worried about now are surprises. It is much easier to melt the Greenland ice sheet than it is to rebuild it. The ice and snow around the planet have a cooling effect due to their white color that reflects large amounts of solar radiation back to space. Without this ice and snow, additional radiation will be absorbed at the surface and the Earth will warm even more. The thawing of the high latitude permafrost (frozen ground) may result in huge emissions of CH4 that will also accelerate the warming.
Colin Price is a professor in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University.
Jay Gulledge … “change is the key word”
Change is the key word in climate change. For most people, this change will involve larger, more frequent extremes. For instance, in 2030 a Midwestern city will probably experience more rainfall, but it will likely come in fewer, larger events, with more frequent flooding. And between these events, there might be more frequent, longer, and hotter droughts. Residents of the city may come to expect 100+ degrees for many days running during extended droughts, when the soil is dry and no longer draws heat from the air. In summer, peak water and electricity demand will probably grow faster than city planners anticipated, requiring emergency infrastructure investments. With fewer hard freezes in winter, more pesticides will likely be needed to control mosquitoes and other pests. We will need to bolster emergency health care funds and disaster response systems to cope with these new extremes. (for more, see In Climate change, ‘change’ is key word)
Jay Gulledge is a senior research fellow and staff scientist at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
John Kermond … “I have seen it”
Having been involved in the U.S. Global Change Research Program from its inception in 1989, I have been exposed to most of the conferences, workshops, reports and assessments that have been made, including those from the International Panel on Climate Change. I have not read every word or watched every animation or talking head, but I have read and seen a lot.
Fast forward to 2007 and I do not have to read another single word with respect to global warming. I have seen it! In both hemispheres of this planet.
In the late summer of 2006, I spent 3 weeks aboard a Russian ice breaker in the Arctic. We found less ice in extent; less ice in thickness; and, very warm water pouring into the Arctic from the Atlantic Ocean. In the fall, I traveled to my native Australia and went to the beach in the town that I was raised — Warrnambool. When I was a kid there, you had to run (fast) over the hot sand before you got to a place on the wide beach where you could put down a towel. You still had quite a hike before your feet got wet. Total sandy beach in the order of 50 to 80 meters. In October of 2006, at high tide, there was 1 to 3 meters of beach available. Even the sand dunes along the two mile crescent shaped beach terminate in a vertical wall with roots of plants exposed. The beach is shrinking. The ocean is rising.
Both of these observations are clinical manifestations of global warming. And they are as predicted. For over a decade we have said that global warming will manifest itself in the higher latitudes. We are seeing the effects of global warming via ice reduction at both Poles, and in a rising sea level in many parts of the world. Already the citizens of Vanuatu (a tiny atoll in the Pacific) have decided to leave and re–settle in new Zealand. The citizens of Shishmareff in Alaska have also decided to leave and re–locate because the sea is taking back their land.
John Kermond is a UCAR Visiting Scientist with NOAA’s Climate Program Office.
Tom Knutson … “merely the beginning”
There is no doubt that the Earth has warmed over the past century or more. The question has been: what role have humans have played in causing this warming, especially through burning of fossil fuels that have caused an increase in greenhouse gases that blanket the planet?
The answer from most scientists who study this problem in detail is that we are now more confident than ever that humans have caused most of the warming, particularly over the last 50 years, and that this man–made warming stands out well above the background of natural climate variability.
But the warming to date is merely the beginning of what is expected to be a much more pronounced global warming in the coming century, although how much warming will occur will depend on how humans continue to modify the atmosphere, and we still have many uncertainties that need to be narrowed in our scientific understanding of the climate system. Warmer global temperatures are just one symptom – perhaps the most obvious one at present – of a global scale change to the Earth’s climate that has great potential to affect future generations in important and varied ways. Some climate change impacts are expected to be beneficial in
some regions. But stronger hurricanes, more heat waves and drought, and increased storm surge damage from rising seas are among the harmful changes we expect to see as we humans continue this global “experiment” with our planet. The challenge facing scientists – and in fact humanity – is to understand and deal with this complex issue in what is already a complicated world.
Tom R. Knutson is a research meteorologist with the Climate Dynamics and Prediction Group at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.
Wonderful, just wonderful. Thanks to all participants here and to the Earth & Sky community. Now if we can encourage many more voices to speak out.
If the IPCC is somehow on the right track, then it seems to me that human behavior change is in the offing.
Perhaps we can begin by seeing how each and every human being can make a difference. If unrestrained growth of the human population, the predominant global economy and per human consumption are beginning to overwhelm global ecosystems and exceeding the planet’s productive carrying capacity, then would it not make sense for human beings in the UNDEVELOPED world to choose to voluntarily limit human reproduction; for people in the DEVELOPING world to make choices to sensibly limit pernicious polluting effects of industrialization and big business conglomeration; and for individuals in the DEVELOPED world to limit per human consumption of scarce natural resources because the current scale and rate of growth of unbridled human propagation, untethered economic expansion and unchecked per capita consumption are patently unsustainable on the small planet God has blessed us to inhabit?
This is not to say, for example, that individuals in the developed world could not choose to limit their consumption of resources, reduce their contributions to environmental degradation AND have fewer children. Some people will be in a position to do more than others; however, if everyone does what can be done, necessary change will occur.
As important as individual action is, there is a need for many people to engage our brothers and sisters in governments, corporations and the mass media regarding the potential adverse consequences of climate change. At least to me, the cooperation of the power-brokers, managers and promoters of the economic globalization agenda appears to be imperative.
Thanks to all for your great work.
Always,
Steve
What’s most interesting to me here – besides the fact that many scientists are now willing to speak out about global warming – is that these scientists are also now speaking of “changing habits” and “changing lifestyles.”
From what I read, in our attempts to keep global warming under control, we Americans may need to change our level of energy use and consumerism.
But what’s also interesting about THAT are the scientific studies being done on well-being. It seems it’s true … or at least the evidence is pointing to this truth … money and things can’t buy you happiness.
I think people need to know what more we can do as individuals other than lobbying government/industry. We know to use more fuel efficient vehicles, walk instead of drive, turn down the thermostat. What else can scientists suggest we do?
I’m not a scientist, but I think we should just always be thinking about how we use energy, and then use less energy. Like remember to turn off the lights, or hang out the clothes instead of using a drier.
We have had the rhetoric
We have identified the problem
Now how about some constructive solutions??
EG
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/3451-terra-preta.html?highlight=Terra+preta
http://forums.hypography.com/science-projects-homework/6465-solar-parabolic-trough-charcoal-oven.html?highlight=Terra+preta
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/8290-d-i-y-planet-cooling.html?highlight=Diy+planet+cooling
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/10147-chlorophyll-plankton-global-warming.html?highlight=Why+are+these+man+made
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/9998-planting-trees-good-thing-bad-thing.html?highlight=Why+are+these+man-made+gasses
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/10099-why-these-man-made-greenhouse-gases.html?highlight=gasses+banned
Get cracking! Time is running short and there are a lot of people on the net looking for ways to help solve the problem
michaelangelica
Yes global warming is human created but not in the manner we are expected to believe.
In the 60s scientists feared the Americans (the term was Tickling the Ionisphere) which turns out that they heat the Ionisphere to boilng point.
It was explained that the Ionisphere is to the Earth what the membrane that holds the fluid is to protect a foetus in the womb.
Therein lies the cure…Stop Them.
Did America ever dispose of Nuclear waste in the Antarctic?
Listen (or read) the herd mentality above. Doesn’t it sicken you as it does me? All afraid to sound like independent thinkers. It’s always been the emissions thing with them. Never do they consider that the earth evolves and has been changing from hot to cold to hot again for eons.
The sun plays a large part in the effects of the weather and that cannot be denied. The earth is struck several thousands of times each moment by lightning strikes creating fires. Volcanism spews ton(nes) of material and gases constantly. The tilt and wobble of the planet changes constantly. The position of the current north star vs. the one of many years ago verifies this.
But we must always blame puny humans and their attempt to exist. The fact is the current dogma presented here has is origination in the corporate world. They want us to change our ways so that they can sell us new products that supposedly will correct the imaginary problem WHILE THEY (as the parasites they are) GET RICHER OFF OF THE PUBLIC!
When will you people grow up and learn about the planet on the long term scale and learn to live with it and stop being the victims of the corporate forces? Think about it: Isn’t most of the money that finances studies of imaginary crisis come from the organisations that want to exploit us?
Change happens naturally and any un-natural attempt to stop it will be more damaging than doing nothing…. jealex2@gmail.com
Judith, I believe what you’re describing may have been an idea in the 1960s of what would happen during a nuclear war. It is not really related to the current understanding of global warming.
Many thanks for your comment, though. It reminds us that our co-existence with nature on this planet has many facets!
All the best,
Deborah
Jack, I honor your opinion and share your frustration. But as a science writer with 30 years of experience, I cannot agree that the idea of global warming was started by corporations.
Instead, the idea of global warming stemmed from measurements made on a mountaintop in Hawaii, beginning in the 1950s. These measurements – made then, and still being made today – show an increasing amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasees in Earth’s atmosphere.
In the 1960s and ’70s, as they measured from year to year, scientists were surprised to find this increase. Like you, they would not have imagined – at that time – that “puny humans” could have such an effect.
But, even the ’60s and ’70s, scientists knew that greenhouse gases trap heat. And, by the 1970s when I became a science writer, scientists were already saying that human activities were the likely cause of this increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. They were using the tools of science – physics, mathematics, computers, Earth-orbiting satellites – to study this idea. By the 1970s, they were already predicting that Earth would begin to warm noticeably as a result of excess greenhouse gases – caused by human activities – in the atmosphere.
And now Earth has begun to warm noticeably.
Global warming is not a “plot” by the left or right. It is a real observed phenomenon on the Earth.
And as scientists’ understanding has increased over the last few decades, they have begun to see the MANY ways in which humans affect Earth, while Earth is affecting humanity. Scientists now speak of Earth and its humans as a “coupled” system. This is an active area of scientific study in the 21st century.
It’s why Earth & Sky – which tries to be “a clear voice for science” – speaks often of a human world.
My best to you,
Deborah
Unfortunately a society as self indulgent and decadent as ours will never contribute significantly to the repairing of the earth because we will need to be forced into using less of the earths resources.The mega rich will keep producing merchandise that the so called “average American household NEEDS and WANTS.We are producing a nation of fat ass couch potatoes and SUV drivers on their way to MacDonalds.We ARE our own worst enemy.We ARE leaving a legacy of extinction to our children.We ARE getting dumber with each new generation.The next global war will reduce this nation to an occupied third rate country.Our politicians are afraid of their own shadow and the new ones coming up for the next election are no better.There will never be a heaven on earth as long as it is al about power and money.
I empathize with those who feel overwhelmed, as individuals, with regard to confronting the large issues of our common era. I also know that it is easy to feel powerless to affect trends that are so much larger than we are. I respectfully submit to you, however, that the environment (and specifically the health of plants) should be the unquestioned top of our priority list. Some feel it is inhumane to make it so. Consider this: if the plants die, everything dies. If the environment fails to sustain us as a species then all of the other issues of injustice, inequality, and fairness will cease to have meaning…because we will all be dead. Caring first for the environment does not mean that we have to be insensitive to other issues facing our human brothers and sisters; it simply means that our offspring will be on this planet long enough to resolve them.
When you’re feeling small also consider this: if you change the two most frequently used light bulbs in your house with compact flourescent bulbs and if you plant one tree, you can personally reduce air pollution by 1000 pounds this year. You! This year! (And think about how much more you could actually do in addition to those simple changes). Good luck to each of us in saving the planet.Facts don’t lie, global warming is with us and will only get worse as time goes on. Having established that, it is time to act. Based on my experience as a former troubleshooter in my business, is it most important to study the problem and then proceed with finding a solution. So let us concentrate on that.
Today’s living standard’s requirements are such that factories can barely keep up with demands. As industry and commerce are on a constant increase, so is their demand for electrical power.
More and more Power Generating Stations are being built to satisfy those needs. These power generating facilities have been a growing concern as most of them are large contributors to our problem. Other than solar, wind or hydro(water) power facilities, all do contribute in one form or another to global warming. Not only by affecting the atmosphere (thus also the air we breathe) but also consider the enormous amounts of hot water released into our waterways by each and everyone of such facilities, and in particular the nuclear facilities, which need a constant supply of water for cooling their reactors. Most of these water sources are connected to oceans. Does this rising temperature phenomenon
of ocean waters correlate with where the heaviest concentrations of power generating stations is found?
In studying this matter I did find a solution of eliminate these negative aspects of generating electrical power and instead generate clean, reliable and constant electrical power in a manner not presently being done. The source used for this generating process is free and in abundant supply, yet, even through usage will not diminish in quantity or quality.
I am still in the process of trying to find a University team that will partner with me in developing this idea for commercial implementation. In designing this process I included the condition that it must be able to be of worldwide benefit, in particular, to help the less developed nations. That is my contribution to society.
Dear Rick Redzinski,
Life does not have to be all “about power and money,” as you put it. I realize how regularly we hear that the unrestained growth of the ever expanding global political economy is “the only game in town”. Now that is the way things are made to appear, thanks to the masters of the universe who power-broker, manage and promote unlimited maximization of economic industrialization, ever increasing per human consumption of scarce resources, and skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers.
Perhaps the masters of the universe have not discovered “the one and only best way to live” on this small, wondrous planet God has blessed us to inhabit. Many are the ways to live well and sustainably in this world. Human history is replete with examples.
Who knows, given the small size of Earth, we may come to find there are such things as limits to the growth of large-scale industries once they take on the size and habits of the dinosaurs. In all likelihood, there is not a way for human beings to endlessly increase their rate of consumption of resources in this planetary home. First, because natural resources are limited and, second, because morbid obesity leads to death. Who knows, we may find that the Earth cannot sustain even the 9 billion inhabitants which are estimated to be present on Earth’s surface in the year 2050.
If we make necessary changes in a timely way, then there is not a basis for the belief that “we ARE leaving a legacy of extinction to our children,” I suppose. On the other hand, if we choose to stay the course and not change, but instead to continue following the self-proclaimed masters of the universe down the “primrose path” to impending industrial unsustainability, then unthinkably unwelcome changes could be in the offing for our children.
My not-so-great generation of elders knows better, and we can do better than we are doing. I am trusting we will make changes to sustainable ways of living well in this wondrous place in the universe.
Sincerely,
Steve
Some very considered opinions. It’s great that the message is getting out which I think it is. Media coverage has been pervasive of this report. I wonder if we will get past the message and onto sustainable solutions. Thoughts of mass bio fuel source farming to feed an ever so green energy consuming market could perhaps be alarming.
This global warming debate is obviously a great source of consternation for many people, but have you considered the following glaring facts?
1. The so-called experts, including numerous scientists and meterologists, find it impossible to reliably predict our weather from DAY to DAY in any one city or region. Why should we place such blind faith in those same experts to predict what is going to happen to our whole earth climate over the next 100 YEARS?
2. After the extremely active hurricane season in the U.S. in 2005, numerous of these same “experts” predicted gloom and doom for the 2006 hurricane season, and publicly claimed that it would be even worse. In reality, the 2006 season was mild and more in keeping with the average season when compared to the last 150 years.
3. The global warming debate means BIG money in research grants and various government subsidies to many scientists and organizations around the world. Indeed, without such debate, there are a great many persons who would be forced to look for work elsewhere. Is it any wonder that many of these persons’ agendas MIGHT be to keep their jobs and keep the money rolling in?
4. What of those persons who do not agree with the IPCC and its reporting? One such scientist is discussed in the article at the link shown below. It is interesting to note that he was one of the more highly regarded scientists within the IPCC community. Here is his story:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0
5. No one can deny that the earth has been experiencing natural periods of increasing and decreasing temperatures for millions of years. The various ice ages and warmer times occurred long before man even existed, and certainly long before man began with the industrialization and burning of fossil fuels. Since our same experts cannot unequivocally determine and agree on what caused those natural earth shifts (some of which were only a few thousand years ago), again I ask why we should put blind faith in their gloomy forecast now?
With all these facts stated, I concede that I do not believe mankind should sit idly by or indiscriminately waste our resources. Everyone can do their part to reduce consumption, and reuse and recycle products where possible. I firmly believe we are responsible for being good stewards of our earth. But that does not mean we are to be slaves to it, nor does it mean that we should allow ourselves to be bullied by questionable science and its “experts”.
A few years ago a book entitled “The Population Bomb” implied everything we are seeing now. Without attention to an early stabilization, and subsequent reduction, of the human population we are condemned to a continuing degradation of the planet.
One thing people miss is the RATE at which the warming is occurring, not whether it is occuring. This link
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
to NOAA shows this trend. The RATE is greater now than ever in recorded history. It is exponential and coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution. When discussing global warming, we must recognize that the scientists of the world are reporting documented peer-reviewed observations from all over the world (not beliefs or opinions) taken with the most sophisticated equipment in existence since the beginning of the history of the human race and it is highly unlikely that they are wrong in their reporting of the resulting data. If anyone has any question as to how much (or even if) puny human activity affects the earth’s environment; the next time they drive their car to the store several miles, they should try pushing it back home to observe how much energy it takes to move that much mass – and then think about how much energy it must take to move 1000’s of jet airliners (they are really heavy I’ve never tried to pick one up but I know they are really heavy – a scientist would weigh it before he or she would even dare say it is really heavy) 1000’s of miles every day. Yes, we humans may be puny, but the things we use are not. Another thing people miss is the difference between belief, opinion, observation and fact. A person’s statement has validity to another depending on how each individual defines these words. Some equate opinion, and belief to fact and this can do nothing but promote argument with no resolution. Others will continue to reject facts and reports of observations from others as non-truths, even when presented with evidence to the contrary right before their eyes.
Dave, (entry 14) You bring up some valid points, and your last one needs more emphasis… You are correct to point out the difference between belief, opinion, observation and fact BUT – the problem here is that even the best of scientists with proven data, must somehow convey this to others, and his(or her) best efforts to do this will still inevitably show their feelings or opinions about the data they are presenting. Add second or third person reporting of the scientist’s findings, and there is already a noticeable “spin” to the information. No one is immune to this, and it happens even without trying, so it can truly be difficult to sort it all out. So your last sentence is quite true, and yet your text includes your opinion as well as fact. My personal opinion on the overall subject is that we do have global warming, partially due to the natural cycle and partially due to human activities. Just how much can be credited to either is debateable. Either way, we should all give our very best to conserve energy, recycle as much as possible and be better stewards of the earth’s resources; this is the responsible thing to do. And yes, there is alot a single puny individual can do in this regard.
I think sometimes people expect too much of scientists. They are not all-knowing. They are trying very hard to figure out what’s going on today with respect to Earth’s climate. But science is not perfect, and our knowledge of natural systems is bound to be imperfect as well.
Also, like all people considered as a group (like all of us commenting on this post), scientists are individuals, and so they sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with each other. It could not be otherwise …
That’s why it’s important, when trying to decide what you think about the global warming issue, to look at compilations of the work of many scientists. It’s good to look not just at ONE study, but at long-term reviews of hundreds of studies. The most recent such review was announced on Friday, Feb. 2 by the IPCC ... Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change … 800 scientists in 130 countries looking at climate change over a five-year period.
News about that study is all over the web this weekend … Earth & Sky’s article about it is here.
Dear Friends,
Despite the incontrovertible element of uncertainty and other limitations of scientific methods, I do think we can implicitly assume that science plays a vital role by providing humankind with the best knowledge of the way the world in which we live actually works and of the placement of humankind within the natural order of living things.
At least to me, science is one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity. If the human species is guided by the best available, good science, I have no doubt that we will respond ably to whatsoever challenges are presented to us.
While I do not want to oversimply what looks like a formidable human predicament looming potentially before humanity, I have complete confidence in science and in the capability of the human species to be guided by it to a good enough life for our children and coming generations.
It is our task in life to do not more, or less, than find through science that which is somehow true about our species and the world in which we live. Denying “what is” could be perilous because whatsoever is is, is it not?
Science is imperfect and we with “feet of clay” are imperfect; nevertheless, it remains our certain responsibility to embrace science as perfectly as we are able and to accept the directions it explicitedly provides us.
Always,
Steve
I have to agree the climate is changing. I also believe that the warming caused by humans is simply a side-effect of overpopulation and technology. Sure, human caused emissions contribute to warming, but consider what has lead to these emissions. It’s the booming population on Earth and the industrial revolution.
It’s not the animals at the zoo dumping chemicals into the oceans and rivers it’s always people doing it as a means to some selfish end. It doesn’t matter if you consider it “survival” because the outcome is still the same. The Earth has a finite amount of space and resources. Even if we were able to stop all emissions today the problem of an ever increasing world population would still threaten human existence for these reasons.
If we view the planet as a living being, humans are nothing more than parasites feeding on available resources until the host can no longer supply them. There is only so much food in the refrigerator so to speak.
Many people in the world are selfish and are waiting for someone else to make the sacrifice so they won’t have to change their lifestyle. Is this human nature? If so, we are doomed. Some believe that technology will solve all the problems when technology is partly the reason for the problem in the first place.
The end of human life on does not mean all life on Earth will cease to exist, just that all the people here will be gone. Maybe nature has a way to evict its negligent tenants after all.
Att: Jack Alexander
Your view of corporations being the ones to create false controversy about global warming in order to sell new products is almost interesting. You may want to rethink your position when orange trees are planted in Alaska.
BRAVO-SCIENTISTS STATMENTS; IF HELEN AMANDA FRICKER OF THE NEARBY SCRIPPS,READS MY ALL CAPS HUNT-PECK TYPE-CAPS AS MY HANDS ARE OLD">BLOGTHEN SHE SHOULD TAKE UP ANOTHER IDIOTIC HABIT THAT SENIORS-OTHERS ALONG THE COLORADO RIVER-MOHAVE DESERT ARE PRACTISING; THIS INVOLVES SENIOR PARKS BY THE HUNDREDS AND ALSO DESERT CAMPERS DOING THE SELFISH AND NIEVE HABIT OF ,GET-THIS; ‘RECREATIONAL CAMPFIRE BURNING!!! WHERE ARE THE BLM DUDES? THEY COULD STOP THIS DEAD,BUT NO,THEY FLOUNDER. YES MY SENIOR PARK IN EARP CALIFRONIA HAVE ‘SCHEDULED’ WITH AN ACTUAL HARTH (THEIR DUMB IDEA) STONE BUILT FIRE PIT HOLDING SCRAP WOOD FROM PARK RESIDENT ACTIVITIES-HOBBIES, FOR WEEKLY ‘BURNS’ AT NIGHT!! I CONTACTED THE LOCAL SAN BERNIDINO FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND ASKED JUST WHY IS THIS ALLOWED? THE FIRE CAPTAIN,SAID ‘THEY ARE WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS TO ‘BURN’,IF WEATHER CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT’! I REMINDED THE FIRE CAPTAIN THAT THIS WAS DANGEROUS AS THERE HAS BEEN A SEVERE DROUGHT ALONG THE RIVER FOR YEARS-NOW,AND THE FUEL-BRUSH-TINDER POTIENTIAL NEXT TO THE PARK IS HUGE! HE RESPONDED WITH THEY’COULD CHECK THE PIT AT THE SENIOR PARK/S,BUT HE HAD NO MORE SAY’.THESE ARE FIREMEN (NOT) DOING THEIR JOBS AND SPEAKING-OUT FOR FEAR OF ROCKING THE BOAT! HELEN,WE NEED TO INACT A CALIFORNIA LAW THAT BANNS ANY-ALL ‘RECREATIONAL BURNING’.... FOR EVER,AND THOSE VIOLATING THIS NEW LAW SHOULD PAY DEARLY,SINCE THEY ARE CAUSING MORE CARBONS TO ENTER THE EARTH’S ATMOSPEHRE...FOR THE ‘PLEASURE’ AND ROMANTIC NOTION THAT ‘RAOSTING MARSHMELLOWS IS A FUN THING TO DO’???
Att: Chris M
More accusations about scientists creating a set of facts that will allow them to keep their jobs and grants. I have to think that it is easier to believe this pack of nonsense than to change one`s own consumer habits.
Are we to believe that scientists are unanimous in their belief that this phenomenon is caused by human activity? Where are the dissenters? Is there even one who has another opinion?
The data showing what is happening – that greenhouse gasses are increasing – are impressive, but where are the dissenting opinions and theories on its causes?
Remember, Copernicus was initially the only one on the planet who believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not the other way around!
This conspiracy has to stop. There is no doubt that global warming is occuring. What you leave out is that it has always occured (even before humans). What is in doubt is not the existence of global warming but whether humans are the cause since global warming has occured even in periods before humans. To frame the argument otherwise is disengenuous.
There is a higher correlation with warming and solar activitiy than with greenhouse gases caused by humans. As far as I am concerned the opinions of scientists who specialize fields that aren’t directly related to climate hold little weight and many of those that do suffer from the same defect of bias that “studies” produced by oil companies do.
Closing the door on other more probably explanations isn’t only scientific it is draconian.
-I
Hello all,
As I said at the top of this post … we emailed about 500 scientists last week, fairly randomly, trying to focus on climate scientists, using email lists we just had lying around. We didn’t just pick these scientists by hand. These are the ones that happened to email us back.
I then wrote personally to one well-known global warming “skeptic” ... someone we’ve heard from in the past on Earth & Sky … I appreciate this scientist’s view, even though I don’t believe it in light of what I hear elsewhere. I asked him specifically if he would make his view known for our article … to provide some balance. He contributed a piece, which I placed in with the others. Actually, in his piece, he seemed to have softened his view somewhat, moving closer to the view of the other scientists in this article.
But when I passed the entire article back to these scientists on Thursday, for their review, one scientist found several factual errors in the statements of the “skeptic.” They argued about it by email for awhile, copying me on their arguments. Because I wasn’t sure how to resolve their controversy within the context of this article, I decided to separate out the statement by the single skeptic (remember, I had had to contact him specifically to get his view).
We’ll run that single contrary view as a guest post in our blog on Monday. Come on back and read it tomorrow!
The so-called “controversy” over global warming among scientists is really not a controversy at all. Most scientists believe that global warming is real and caused at least partly by humans. Read this article! That’s what these scientists are saying!
All the best,
Deborah
There is evidence that earth has entered the beginning stages of a geomagnetic reversal. While we know this reversal is natural and has happened more than 100 times in earth history, a flipping of the poles has not happened since neanderthals walked the earth. We do not know how deeply it effects our climate.
While I personally think we should be planting more trees and lowering emissions, I also think, since we do not yet have a real grasp on earth’s natural cycles, we should keep an open mind to other factors that may not directly relate to human impact.
Aaron … yes … I agree …
If you would be so kind, consider that we have good scientific research of three things: 1) the recent skyrocketing growth of absolute global human population numbers and a consensually validated expectation that those numbers will grow to 9+/- billion people by the year 2050, 2) ever increasing per human consumption of limited resources of the Earth cannot be maintained indefinitely and 3) the seemingly endless expansion of the world’s predominant political economy are occurring synergistically and pointing to the existence of a rapidly spreading human monoculture, one that can be characterized by its proclivity for unlimited growth.
At their current scale and rate of growth, unbridled human propagation, consumption and production activities could conceivably be approaching a time in human history when these activities will be literally outrunning humanity’s capabilities to anticipate and address the potential adverse consequences of these distinctly human, species activities.
Please forgive me for stating as plainly as poor communication skills allow that the cultural predisposition for the adamant, unrestrained insistence upon infinite growth of certain human activities in a finite world ignores emerging scientific evidence regarding human species’ limits as well as well-established scientific knowledge of Earth’s limitations.
Comment #21: “Copernicus was initially the only one on the planet who believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun . . .”
Hardly! Aristarchus came up with the idea almost 2,000 years before Copernicus. Yes, I think parallels can be made between the Copernican theory and the global warming debate. For instance, the Copernican view slowly gained acceptance with the accumulation of more and more data over the centuries. Drawing a parallel, it could be said that additional evidence has bolstered the suspicion that human activity is contributing to global warming.
Instead of arguing about who is right or wrong, it’s more important to promote honest inquiry and to learn more on the subject. We need to become much better stewards of our home planet Earth!
Thanks Bruce,
I believe in stewardship, but what that means to me, among other things, is that we raise public awareness and advance scientific knowledge concerning what it is about global human overgrowth activities (unchecked per capita consumption and unrestricted human reproduction) and man-made systems (the untethered expansion of the world’s gigantic human economy) that are either sustainable or else patently unsustainable.
Perhaps that knowledge is necessary now because good science could be vital to protecting humanity from endangerment, biodiversity from extinction, global ecosystems from irreversible degradation, and Earth’s finite resources from reckless dissipation.
Time is short and appears not to be on our side.
Sincerely,
Steve
I am a bit skeptical about the study undertaken to assert global warming, and man as a major contributor to it. The studies seem to go back 200 years, but do not address the rest of the history of the planet. Did animals in the past not adjust to climate shifts? And can man be expected to do likewise? Also, I see nowhere where the amount (percentage of increase) of CO2 is mentioned in the reports. I know that the earth’s atmospere is 78% Nitrogen and 21% Oxygen. That doesn’t leave a significant amount of air for dangerous increases in CO2. I hope someone can clarify this for me. I am playing devil’s advocate but I would like more information as above before I cry wolf.
Dear M. David Martinez,
I am old and skeptical, too, and do not mean to be one who cries wolf. It is becoming crystal clear that what I once believed were adequate communication skills are abjectly failing me now. You are asking real and legitimate questions that I cannot answer. Perhaps others in Earth & Sky community can assist you. Keep playing the devil’s advocate.
All that I can feebly add that might somehow be helpful follows.
Keep asking good questions. Keep faith with the Earth & Sky community. Recall what W. B. Yeats said for all of us, We “love and love what vanishes. What more is there to say?”
Steve
Carbon dioxide concentrations in 1860 were 290 parts per million (ppm) and climbed to over 360 parts per million by the end of the 20th century. I believe CO2 levels are now over 380 ppm, and are projected to climb to perhaps 500 ppm by the middle of the 21st century. A chart displays the 1860-1900’s increase at the listed web site:
http://www.cet.edu/ete/modules/climate/GCcarbon1.html
Another graph shows anthropogenic emissions versus atmospheric concentrations from 1750-2000:
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0313-co2.html
Thanks Bruce and Steve!
To M. David Martinez … it’s precisely BECAUSE carbon dioxide plays such a small part in our atmosphere that humans have been able to upset the balance.
Climate records made by man go back only about 150 years. But climate scientists can use things like tree rings – and air bubbles trapped in glaciers – to go further back in time and learn more about Earth’s past climate.
You are so correct. There are many unknowns. We do not know, for example, whether animals of the past were able to adjust to shifts in climate. The fossil record indicates that there have been several major extinction events in the history of the Earth. One such event, for example, caused the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. That particular extinction is thought to have been caused by an asteroid striking Earth (although I think there’s been some new debate about this recently). Other ideas about the dinosaurs’ extinction were that – for example – a time of extreme volcanic activity changed the climate and caused the dinosaurs to become extinct. So an extinction caused by a climate shift is certainly possible. A climate shift may have played a role in the other extinction events in Earth’s history. We do not know. Again … there are many unknowns.
I hope this helps – a little – in answering your questions.
All the best,
Deborah
Basic understanding of living in the environment….got it and share it .. thanks you all earth&sky
take care and stay healthy…
Lu.
Do YOU believe it is possible for the Earth & Sky community to keep this thread active on a daily basis for the remainder of the year?
What a wonderful statement of support that would be for the splendid scientists who are speaking out so clearly, here and now, regarding the formidable human predicament that potentially looms before humanity in these early years of Century XXI.
The work ahead will not be easy because the masters of the universe have already determined that there are “unacceptable business costs” and “lower profit margins” associated with reality-oriented policies and programs to protect frangible ecosystem services and preserve the limited resources of Earth from the pernicious effects of economic globalization.
For the sake of our children, I am trusting that those in my generation of elders will consider making what we believe to be careful, skillful and humane behavior changes by doing something other than relentlessly insisting upon more unbridled maximum growth of the gigantic world economy now rampantly overspreading the surface of Earth.
Thanks always to the community of Earth & Sky.
Ten part series by the National Post. A couple of former IPCC members are some of the “deniers”.
I also question why only the summary was made available and the report with the data will not be released until May.
Statistics needed
The Deniers — Part I
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0
Statistics needed — The Deniers Part I
Warming is real — and has benefits — The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science — The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice — The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold — The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change — The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? — The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability — The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming — The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 — the Deniers Part X
What you present to us, Mayday, reinforces a sense of foreboding within me, because I am one who is haunted by the prospect of 9+/- billion consumers and producers on this planet in 2050. It is difficult for me to see how our small planetary home can maintain the productive capacity, sufficient resources and frangible ecosystem services to support so large a number of of our species along with other forms of life we see today.
IF, and I add if, the human species propagates like other species, as emerging data from R. Hopfenberg, D.Pimentel, A. Thornhill, A.A.Bartlett, L.R. Brown, E.O.Wilson appear to indicate, then the global challenges before humanity well before the second half of Century XXI could be more forbidding than people seem to realize now.
IF, and I say again if, absolute global human population numbers do not stabilize as is almost everywhere predicted at mid-century, then the human species could come face to face with the potentiality for unimaginable threats.
If the fatuous complacency of my not-so-great generation of elders is based upon preternatural thought and inadequate science, precisely because we have planted “our ‘collective’ head in the sand” —- refusing at every turn to acknowledge the adverse impacts of our unbridled global overgrowth activities —- then coming generations, if there are any, will likely look back in anger at much of what we have done and failed to do, when opportunities for change were clear and present.
At least to me, there is something grossly unfair about the per human consumption patterns of those with literally everything who want even more and insist on living without regard to human species limits and Earth’s limitations. There also appears to be something patently unsustainable about the current scale and rate of growth of the seemingly endless expansion of economic globalization, based upon the unlimited maximization of the activities of gigantic businesses overspreading the finite world we inhabit. If emerging data of unrestrained human production and unchecked per human consumption are somehow on the right track, then the future for our children could be put at risk by unregulated activities in which we are now unthoughtfully and adamantly engaged.
If our forefathers and mothers had put their heads in the sand and abdicated their responsibilities to respond ably to the requirements of biophysical reality by refusing to do what they could to provide a good enough future for their children, as we appear to be doing now, would we be here?
“most of us scientists are now convinced that global warming is happening”
Thanks god scientists of europ are convinced that global warming is a REAL thread since long ago !!!
What’s happening in America ??? denial ?
Great testimonials based on suppositions and theories that are not
proven through the scientific method of verification. Extrapolation
based on flawed computer programs doesn’t cut it with me. You academia people are so caught up in your own self importance and the
obtaining of grants that you will say anything including “Global
ice age” (as was being touted 30 years ago) to get your sweaty little paws on the thing you really worship…...money.
Manheim,
Please educate me. Why is the apparent link between human-induced CO2 emissions and global warming so flawed?
Dear Manheim,
You are surely correct about one thing. There are millions of people like me in the world who worship money and worship the leaders who clearly and loudly proclaim to do whatsoever it takes to keep the global economy on its course of maximal expansion of big business production capabilities and patently unsustainable, seemingly endless growth activities.
Please note that there are also billions of people in the world today who are destitute.
Sincerely,
Steve
Despite inadequate ideas, outdated beliefs and preternatural theories found in cascading disinformation from the masters of the universe and their minions in the mass media, Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri and other experts have courageously spoken out loudly and clearly for good science regarding global climate change. They cannot be sufficiently praised even though many will try to find words that extoll their virtues.
Three cheers for Dr. Heidi Cullen and the scientists who have spoken here.
IF remaining willfully blind and mute is a particularly pernicious enemy of good science and population experts continuously refuse to comment on the new science of human population numbers, then would it be correct to say that their maintenance of silence is both a sin of omission and an ironic “expression” of potentially suicidal behavior from presumed leaders of the human species?
Millions of people believe that humans are the cause of global warming, but it is not true. Even if the Earth is warming up a little we are not the cause of it. Nature produces much more Co2 than we do. The media is just trying to scare us into doing things we don’t want to, they are filling our minds with lies. A while ago the media was telling us there was going to be an Ice Age and there wasn’t, so can we really believe all the things they say? The media also only displays the people’s ideas that support their theory, not the one’s who disagree. The only reason why people believe we are all going to die from global warming is because it takes thousands of years to disprove the theory.
OK HERE GOES,I BELIEVE WE AS MOST EVERYONE “IN OUR WORLD” PAY SCIENTISTS AND HAVE SCIENTIST FOR MANY REASONS ..FOR WITHOUT THEM WHERE WOULD WE BE ? .SOME DEAD FROM AN ILLNESS THAT COULD NOT BE CURED AND CAN BE TODAY .MY VIEW ON THIS CLOBLE WARMING IS I FEEL ITS REAL AND IF I DID OR DIDNT THE MAIN IDEA ....> IS WE HAVE ALL OUR SCIENTISTS OUT THERE WORKING FOR ALL OF MANKIND .SOME MAKES MISTAKES IN LIFE AS WE ALL DO .WE ALL ARE HUMAN .SUCH IS LIFE....I ASK THIS WHAT HARM IS THERE TO LOOK AT ALL SIDES? TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBLITES THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ALL MANKIND AND TRY TO MAKE A DIFFRENCE FOR THE BETTER....I’M THANKFUL TO ALL THE CURES IN THE WORLD AND THE HELP TO MAKE OUR LIVES BETTER .I THANK ALL YOU SCIENTISTS OUT THERE YOU DO MAKE A DIFFRENCE IN OUR WORLD A PROVIN FACT IN LIFE ...THANK YOU CHRISTINE
I’m continually surprised by you skeptics. You folks simply haven’t done your homework.
There are millions of tons of many kinds of pollution being released every day, worldwide. If you don’t believe the pollution we humans are putting into the atmosphere is dangerous, then try this little experiment on yourselves: Pull your car into the garage, close the garage door, and just sit there with your car engine running. The gas that will kill you is carbon monoxide – and Earth’s atmosphere is filling up with a lot more than just carbon monoxide.
The relationship between the incredible rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the warming of Earth is startling. But there’s worse: huge amounts of frozen methane are beginning to be released, as the tundra thaws. And methane is even more efficient at capturing the sun’s energy than is carbon dioxide.
No, of course I don’t want you to kill yourselves – but I do think you should read everything you can get your hands on about the global climate crisis. And once you realize how serious the problem is, then put those sharp minds to work and help us find a way to survive.
If you believe in the power of prayer, then now’s the time to start praying about this. A lot.
If you haven’t already seen it, then I urge you to put politics aside and watch Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth.
Good luck, friends.
Howard Grund-Clampit
Dear Friends of the Earth and the Sky,
Thanks for the comments above.
Two points of clarification follow.
1) regarding the words, “ironic ‘expression’ of suicidal behavior” from #40. These words are deployed the way a psychologist would take note of “negative symptoms” of schizophrenia.
2) nothing in the statements in message #40 is intended to suggest that the human species has some sort of predisposition to suicide, in the sense of the human species being somehow uncontrollably “set” to extirpate itself. NO! At least to me, the human species appears NOT to be innately suicidal. However, as a species, if we were to choose NOT to use the miraculous, distinctly human attributes God has given us and NOT to benefit from the best available good science, yet another gift from God, then human species behavior could become so dangerously maladaptive as to precipitate extinction.
The human species has the freedom to choose.
Simply put, EITHER the human species can choose to continue adamantly insisting upon endless growth of its consumption, production and propagation activities, which would eventually result in resource depletion, environmental degradation, mass extirpation of biodiversity and, perhaps, the extinction of the human species; OR humanity can choose to limit further INCREASES in its per capita consumption, production and propagation capabilities now overspreading the surface of the resplendent planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit.
To the limited extent I can see what is somehow true, and in all the profundity of truth, know this: EITHER humankind can choose to change its course of seemingly endless, global growth activities OR our species chooses to run the risks of complete depletion of vital natural resources, irreversible degradation of the environment, unacceptable biodiversity loss, reckless compromise of the integrity of the Earth and, yes, human extinction.
Perhaps the human community is approaching a crossroads where an unwelcome alternative awaits.
Always,
Steve
Howard,
Yes, like you, I think the abrupt rise in CO2 (and methane) in our atmosphere should serve as a wake-up call to our species. But, after reading the many comments made by those who don’t want to acknowledge the science linking human activity to global warming, I have to call it denial – not skepticism.
If a canary dies in a coal mine, I’m sure the miners would take notice and take action. Likewise, the exponential increase in CO2 levels in our atmosphere should prompt us to do the same.
What’s odd to me is that the deniers or skeptics often use as a basis of their argument that not all scientists agree that global warming is happening and is caused by humans.
But of course you will never get all scientists to agree on anything.
It just seems to me that we’d want to err on the side of caution … to listen if global bodies of respected scientists (like the IPCC) repeatedly say that, indeed, global warming is occurring and humans are the cause. It’s always good to be skeptical, and to question. But at least we would listen! At least, we would keep an open mind.
I don’t understand the ferocity of the arguments against the possibility that humans are causing Earth to warm.
I want to understand it. But I don’t understand it.
Dear Deborah,
If we are to address the global challenges presented to humanity, the masters of the universe are going to have to do things differently. They and minions like their way of life and do not want to change anything. Their way of life is not negotiable so they say.
For example, there are now 2.5 millionaires in the US and 5.5 more millionaires worldwide. The maintenance of our lifestyles and the economic growth upon which our unsustainable way of life depends, is more important than anything else you can suggest as an alternative. Please do not suggest that any changes be made in the maximal expansion of economic globalization. That the scale and rate of growth of unbridled economic increase in a finite world is patently unsustainable is something we do not talk about. We also do not talk about impending industrial unsustainability or the warming and pollution of the environment. We are going to have the money to purchase air conditioners, clean air, potable water, material comforts and land, at whatever the cost. You will find us in enclaves and gated communities, in private clubs and secret societies living the life we ‘promise’ to everyone else, if only “they” will pull themselves up by their bootstraps like we tell each we have done. That billions of people have no boots is not something we want to talk about.
What is so unfortunate is that the “canaries” are already dying, but people generally do not take notice because too many leaders in my not-so-great generation, who are expected to provide sensible and sound leadership, are possessed of morally inadequate values and ineffectuality. Rather than choose to acknowledge real issues and challenges, these leaders are focusing public attention, discourse and treasure on a number of fool’s errands.
Our children will surely give us better leadership than that provided by many leaders in my generation, who are dedicated themselves first, last and always to global economic growth, whatever the cost. From what I am learning from the children, they will “plant their standards” on good science, a future for coming generations, actual stewardship of the Earth…... and a global economy that meets the basic needs of billions of people not the insatiable wishes of several million people.
Always,
Steve
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Among many others, no less than 26 experts on the Earth’s climate have broken the silence here and spoken out on the critical challenges presented to humanity by global warming.
Are there not top-rank colleagues with expertise in population science who will break their silence by carefully, skillfully and rigorously examining the research of Russell Hopfenberg, Ph.D. and David Pimentel, Ph.D. on human population dynamics and then commenting on these data?
From my humble vantage point, I believe a real challenge is presented by the scientific evidence to which I am referring our population science experts because the finest scientists I can find have indicated that the research of human population dynamics could be difficult to refute. If one or more experts would be so kind, please thoroughly review and report to us on the unexpected science from Hopfenberg and Pimentel.
Personally, it will fine with me if these data are found to be fundamentally flawed. Please know, the moment that refutation is presented, I will end the AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population, not to be heard from again.
Thanks so much,
Steve
Reproducing the ancient Amazonian farming practice (known as Terra preta nova) using modern pyrolysis techniques is a possible way of slowing or even stopping further global warming if adopted on a big enough scale.
Terra preta/pyrolysis/charcoal/carbon sequestration conference in Australia
There is a conference exploring the whole Terra preta; soil in Charcoal; carbon sequestration issue, open to all, soon in Australia. It is being organised by the grass root organization the International Agrichar Initiative (IAI) April 29-May 2, 2007 at beautiful Terrigal Beach, New South Wales, Australia.The conference has been priced inexpensively so as many as possible can attend.
You will be taken to see the Best Energies demonstration Pyrolysis machine in action at Somersby. Here is all the technology we need to cool,power,feed and green the planet. It is all ready to go. Sir Richard Branson is welcome to come.(Tell him to bring his checkbook).
For more details see the new terra preta discussion web site (Pleas join up if you are interested it is only a week old)here:
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=about
For more info on Terra preta see also the hypography Science forums
Here
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/3451-terra-pre …
Or the Permaculture forums
—
Dear Michaelangelica,
The ideas to which you refer could be terrific. Or not. Others with understanding of what you are reporting will have to comment.
Let me add here that ways must be found to address the global challenges posed by global warming. I surely hope your idea is one among many that effectively reduce and sequester Co2
emissions.
For the sake of following your example of presenting a helpful idea, I would like to add one here.
The astounding wealth in the global economy needs to be rapidly put into the strategic development of wind, water, solar and geo-thermal power sources. Economic incentives need to be employed to encourage necessary behavior changes by indivduals and businesses. The force of the tax system could be utilized to penalize personal and corporate behaviors associated with conspicuous per capita consumption, inefficient use of energy, failures to conserve natural resources and, in any case, to prevent their reckless dissipation.
Always,
Steve
Dear Michaelangelica,
Because finding solutions to the global challenges before humanity are so vitally important and because so many leaders continuously choose to “stay the course” with unsustainable individual and business practices, I would like to say a bit more about how the tax system could be used to shift personal and corporate behavior.
For example, if the problem is burning fossil fuels, then heavily tax the production and use of them while providing large tax incentives to develop and deploy alternatives.
Somehow, I suppose, the task at hand is the elevation of public concern with regard to the unacceptable risks associated with the unbridled growth of large-scale industrialization and to the potentially cataclysmic impacts on life as we know it that could soon be produced by irreversible environmental degradation.
Sincerely,
Steve
As our friend, Orion, makes so clear, we need a kind of vision, some have called for a new preanalytic vision, for our movement toward the future. That is vital, for sure.
As important as clarity of vision is, there is also the need for the effective development of strategies for addressing the global challenges that, even now, are looming and barely visible on the far horizon.
Just a few examples follow:
Every alternative that serves to conserve energy from waste and natural resources from dissipation needs to be taken.
With regard to developing solutions to environmental problems, nation-states could choose occasions for cooperation instead relentless competition that are not always based upon the allocation of resources by markets. Perhaps there is value in economic theories and practices that are different from those embraced by the organizers and managers of the current scheme of economic globalization.
The masters of the universe operating the military-industrial complexes of countries consume vast amounts of energy and material resources. Acts of political will need to be taken that transform multi-billion dollar war machines into “centers of human wellbeing and technological excellence” which promote ways to save energy and serve to invent, discover, protect and renew resources of all kinds.
Scientists need to confront economists about Peak Oil
by Michael Lardelli
March 15, 2007
SIR — Your News Feature “That’s oil, folks” (Nature 445, 14–17; 2007)
highlights the debate over depletion
of the world’s oil
reserves. I would like to make some additional points.
First, the proponents of the Peak Oil theory are predominantly Nature’s
constituency — scientists — whereas the vocal opposition are, to a
significant extent, economists.
They seem to believe that the geological reality of finite conventional oil
resources and the thermodynamic constraints on energy production from
alternative hydrocarbon sources can be overcome by a sufficiently high price
signal.
Second, there are many statistical and energy-production data supporting
predictions of imminent energy decline. For example, a chart of annual
discoveries of oil during the twentieth century shows that, despite
tremendous advancement in discovery and extraction technology during this
period, oil discoveries have been on a downwards trend for nearly 50 years
(see ASPO Newsletter 73; January 2007).
Although huge, non-conventional oil resources exist — for example: tar
sands, shale oil and even biofuels — harvesting these resources is likely to
produce little or no energy profit.
Third, scientists warning of energy decline are seriously disturbed by this
issue, for many reasons. One is the annual increase in the world’s human
population. Until recently this has been sustained by increasing grain
production, made possible by the oil-driven ‘green revolution’. However,
grain consumption now exceeds production and reserves are dwindling rapidly.
The availability of food will be further eroded by the diversion of grain to
production of biofuel.
Most people lack sufficient scientific training to appreciate the strong
evidence for, and dire consequences of, an imminent decline in oil
production. They are easily lulled into complacency by those with a vested
interest in delaying any mitigating responses. The scientific community must
unite behind the issue of energy decline.
Dear Friends,
What, pray tell me, is to be gained from applying unscientific economy theory to looming global challenges resulting from fully anticipated energy shortage, natural resource dissipation, global warming, et cetera?
If we were to find that economic theory is irretrievably flawed from fallacy and fiction, from logical contrivance and bold-faced contradiction, then would it not be reasonable to consider that economic analytics is founded upon preternatural thinking which is simply not useful in good public policy-making?
At least to me, it appears that economic theory is artificially produced and that the global economy is a colossal man-made construction, one which is misperceived and unrealistically regarded by economists as if the global economy can somehow expand endlessly and grow independently of the natural world upon which it depends for its very existence.
Sincerely,
Steve
Dear Michaelangelica,
In the E & S dialogues we find references to cultural shifting as a way of launching changes in individual and group behavior. Some of the values we in the predominant culture cherish regarding the unrestrained consumption of Earth’s limited resources as well as the culturally derived inclination to continuously hoard resources will likely need to be replaced with values and incentives that encourage conservation/preservation of limited resources and distribute in more fair and equitable ways that which has been provided to us by this world for human benefit.
In keeping with democratic principles, ways and means will be found to allocate the lion’s share of world’s material resources to the majority of the human community, based upon actual human needs for food, clothing, shelter, health and family planning education, medical care, et cetera.
Thankfully, we have been provided a plan for rescuing the planet by our great colleague, Lester Brown. A global Marshall Plan exists. The United Nations is operational and needs to be adequately funded and empowered.
Many scientists will add their own expertise to finding solutions to the problems presented to humankind in these early years of Century XXI, problems already visible on the far horizon.
Always,
Steve
Enjoy Doonesbury on the topic of controversial science.
http://tinyurl.com/2ucxft
ALBERT GORE: …
“The Day will come when our children and grandchildren will … ask one of two questions. Either they will ask,
“What in God’s name were they doing? Didn’t they see the evidence? … What were they thinking?
Or,
… How did they find the uncommon moral courage to rise above politics and redeem the promise of American democracy — [to] do what’s right?”To the E & S community,
A respected member of this community has sent me a link to a recent article that I would like to share with all of you because it illustrates something I hope we discuss carefully.
Reason Magazine: A Tale of Two Scientific Consensuses http://www.reason.com/news/show/119530.html
Let me begin by saying that I respect the intelligence and erudition of the writer, Ronald Bailey, as well as the sincerity with which he holds a point of view.
Even so, this article leads me to think of him more as an artist than a science correspondent, much less a scientist. At least to me, his views about “reason” and “science” are deeply embedded in a prevailing “political economy ideology.” The words from the sub-title of his article, “Look who’s letting ideology overrule science,” are better than any I could find to describe what he is doing in the article.
Certainly, it could be that Ron Bailey has an agenda, one that is transparent.
That he chooses NOT to accept the scientific consensus regarding global climate change does not give him, I suppose, an adequate foundation either in reason or in science to decree that there is not one consensus but two of them.
Perhaps others would like to comment.
Always,
Steve
I don’t understand the Ron Bailey article.
So Greenpeace is not entirely consistent with its acceptance or lack of acceptance of one scientific consensus or another. So what? Greenpeace is just one organization.
It doesn’t mean that either consensus – that related to global warming, or that related to GM crops – is incorrect. It doesn’t mean either consensus is correct, either. And it certainly doesn’t mean that the scientific consensus on global warming “isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.”
As far as I can see, Bailey’s article doesn’t mean much of anything. Too bad too, because Reason has some good articles.
Deborah
Dear Deborah,
Despite the realization that is much to say about article of Ronald Bailey, I will be brief.
The clever use of words by Mr. Bailey leads me to consider him one of the most capable obscurantists I have read.
Ron Bailey’s large set of articles, and voluminous statements at the workshops of the Foundation for the Future, if anyone is interested, appear replete with an artist’s use of rhetorical devices such as inappropriate comparisons(similes). For example, he manufactures seemingly out of thin air a specious connection between the actual scientific consensus on climate change and a “wished-for” scientific consensus on genetically modified organisms, and then goes on to make this comparison the centerpiece of his article.
Just for a moment, take notice of the unexpected “Disclosure” that follows his article on not one but two scientific consensuses. He begins by invoking the famous words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, a universally respected thinker. He then immediately follows Emerson’s insight with a stand-alone, revelatory statement in which he uncovers something held supposedly in secret, only now to be disclosed: i.e., his acceptance of the scientific consensus on climate change. At least to me, Mr. Bailey appears to be ‘accepting’ of the scientific consensus on climate change the way I accepted castor oil from my mother when a child. When forced to do so, I accepted the castor oil; but people who know me, recognize that I never, ever asked for it, never had a good word to say about it, and have not since supported its use. This is to say, Ron’s momentary revelation of acceptance likely does not mean he has been or will be found among the champions of the good science in the widely appreciated consensus on climate change.
As ever,
Steve
Steve, I would say that you and I agree on the Bailey article. I wish Ben would drop by and tell us why he likes this article.
Or anyone?
Deborah
Hi again,
This is a time for coherence of mind and clarity of vision, I suppose.
This is NOT the time for the magical effort to ‘establish’ a consensus where there is not one. This is NOT the time for faulty reasoning, contrived logic and an impaired capacity for the appreciation of good science.
We can do better.
Perhaps a discussion of the article by Ron Bailey could be instructive for all of us.
Thanks to each of you,
Steve
Dear Friends,
The following links, regarding the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit, are simply and plainly given for your information, consideration and discussion.
PART 1 [global transformation]:
http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/240704
PART 2 [natural resources]:
http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/240712
PART 3 [plants and animals]:
http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/244668
PART 4 [time to make choices]:
http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/244675
Sincerely,
Steve