After IPCC, 11 scientists explain warming consensus
Photo by Mr. Greenjeans
What does it mean to have a consensus from scientists on the subject of global warming?
This week, Earth & Sky received 9 statements from scientists explaining the scientific consensus on global warming.
Bruce A. Wielicki … “The final IPCC report carries an authority and depth far beyond that of any individual scientist or small group of scientists, no matter how gifted or experienced.”
Scientists are notoriously skeptical, individualistic, and do not tend to play “team” sports. As a result, they only engage in major efforts like the IPCC report in times of clear need. The IPCC process takes about 3 years, and involves nearly 1000 U.S. and international scientists in reviewing the scientific literature, writing chapter drafts, reviewing drafts, and editing and responding to reviewer comments. Scientific results are only connsidered which have survived rigorous peer review in scientific journals, and results from over 4500 journal papers were used and referenced in the previous IPCC report in 2001.
The reason for such a large effort is the fact that a thorough review and understanding of climate change requires scientific expertise across sciences including biology, chemistry, oceanography, atmospheric physics, sea ice and ice sheets, geology, paleontology, meteorology, radiation physics, and remote sensing from space. In most areas both observational and theoretical modeling expertise is required.
The final IPCC report produced every 5 years since 1990 carries an authority and depth far beyond that of any individual scientist or small group of scientists, no matter how gifted or experienced. Unfortunately, in the age of the internet, the number of voices with personal opinions is in fact almost endless. The IPCC report is designed to cut through the noise and summarize the current state of scientific knowledge on climate change. The conclusions of IPCC reports are typically supported and endorsed by all major scientific organizations in the U.S. including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the largest scientific organization in the world with 10 million members), the American Geophysical Union (45,000 earth scientists from 140 nations), the American Meteorological Society (12,000 members), and the U.S. Global Change Science Program which coordinates the U.S. climate change science effort across 13 agencies and departments, including NOAA, NASA, DoD, DOE, EPA, USGS. As far as scientific advice for policy relevant questions like global climate change, the IPCC is as good as it gets.
Bruce A. Wielicki, of NASA’s Langley Research Center, is Principal Investigator for CERES, a project that uses Earth–orbiting satellites to monitor how clouds affect our climate.
Colin Price … “There cannot be a 100% proof as you have in mathematics. “
A consensus implies that the vast majority of scientists working in the field of climate change agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. A majority does not mean all scientists, and hence there are even expert climate scientists that are skeptics. But there cannot be a 100% proof as you have in Mathematics. In the Physical Sciences, data are collected, models are built, theories checked, and the convergence of all these pieces of the puzzle allow us to reach a consensus.
There is no 100% proof that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer, however, today there is a consensus among doctors that this is true.
Colin Price is a Professor in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv UniversityKerry Emanuel … “The best way out of the dilemma of which expert to believe is to undertake the task of understanding the science itself.”
The public is in a difficult position. Global climate is perhaps the most difficult scientific problem we have ever addressed, and it is too much to expect non–scientists to become reasonably knowledgeable about climate science, though of course we must keep trying.
Almost all educated people can listen to the scientific evidence for and against the proposition that, say, the earth is flat and decide for themselves what is true. But for very complex problems, like genomics, stem cell research, and climate, the time and effort to become reasonably well acquainted with the science is large, and citizens are put in the position of deciding whether or not to trust the “experts”.
I believe it is one of the strengths of American culture that it is skeptical of experts. It is natural and in fact reasonable to question whether someone who calls himself an expert really is one, and what ulterior motives might be operating. Groupthink is a real phenomenon and is well documented even among scientists; American heroes tend to be lone voices who buck the prevailing wisdom. Yet it is a clear logical mistake to assume that the majority is always wrong.
So what is one to make of the very large majority of climate scientists who have decided that the scientific evidence weighs strongly in favor of the idea that we are palpably changing climate? Is the evidence really overwhelming, or our they jumping on a bandwagon? And what about les refusards….are they honest brokers, or are they vying to become the next heroic Galileo, even at the risk of becoming the next reactionary defender of the geocentric universe?
In my view, there is no easy way for someone outside the field to tell how much of each group’s views are influenced by ulterior motives, but my advice is first to listen to the language. An objective scientist is usually equivocal to some degree, always allowing for the possibility of error or alternative interpretation of the data. Beware the scientist who argues like a lawyer. But the best way out of the dilemma of which expert to believe is to undertake the task of understanding the science itself. The emergence of socially critical scientific issues, such as genetics and global warming, demands a more scientifically literate citizenry, and Americans should demand more of their K–12 and undergraduate science education.
Kerry Emanuel is Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Joseph Henry LaCasce … “Naysayers are playing devil’s advocate or not qualified to discuss the science. “
The atmospheric C02 levels have been rising alarmingly fast since the early to mid–20th century, and the global mean surface temperature has been rising in tandem. There is no serious disagreement about these trends, because both C02 and temperature can be measured with high accuracy.
The C02 increase is due to anthropogenic forcing. The problem has been establishing that the temperature increase is linked to that in C02 and not, for instance, due to solar variability. This link has now been established, and this has really happened between the releases of the third and fourth IPCC assessments. The climate models are now sufficiently reliable to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the current climate and one in which the C02 forcing is removed. This means we can now state that solar activity cannot account for the observed temperature increase; it is the C02, and hence anthropogenic activity.
One always likes to have debate on scientific questions, and the media in particular has been eager to present both sides. The striking thing about this issue though is that nearly all the scientists working in the field agree. This means that the (few) naysayers could be seen as mavericks. But the most serious among the naysayers are either playing devil’s advocate (to foster further debate, or for other reasons) or are really not qualified to discuss the science.
J. H. LaCasce is in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Oslo, Norway
Stuart Sumida … “what is significant in the case of the universal scientific consensus regarding global warming is the agreement of normally distant fields of scientific endeavour.”
An important key to any scientific consensus is the data. This has been the case in many fields, from gravitational theory to evolution.
However, what is significant in the case of the universal scientific consensus regarding global warming is the agreement of normally distant fields of scientific endeavour. Not only climatologists…but paleontologists who study earth hisory, oceanographers who monitor our seas, physiologists who monitor animal and plant function, ecologists who document the demise of temperature sensitive species, and city planners who now must anticipate rising sea–levels, all converge on the inescapable fact of global warming. Of course climate has changed over the history of the planet, but never at this remarkable and alarming rate.
Stuart S. Sumida is Professor of Biology at California State University in San Bernardino
John Kermond … “There will always be a marginal fringe in most aspects of science.”
To comprehend the scientific consensus regarding global warming, you need to understand the process that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) engages in.
Essentially, this is a regular (5 year) literature review. Teams of scientists world–wide review all of the climate peer–reviewed literature and write up summaries of their findings. The research reported in this literature has already undergone peer review before it was published.
The IPCC does another peer review. Further, the ensuing policy maker documents are then argued WORD FOR WORD by delegates from all of the nations. So when the IPCC reported in February 2007 that it is now “unequivocal” that humans are contributing to global warming, this is the language the delegates agreed to and this is what the literature is reporting.
There will always be a marginal fringe in most aspects of science. Statistically speaking, most researchers are content at the 99% or even 95% level of certainty. By design, this means that they may be wrong, but only at worst 5 times in a hundred.
John Kermond is a UCAR visiting scientist with NOAA’s Climate Program Office.
David Pimentel … “One has only to examine the basic physics of adding CO2 to the atmosphere”
One has only to examine the basic physics of adding CO2 to the atmosphere to understand what impact CO2 is going to have on climate change.
The greatest change will occur in agriculture. Already there are reports of significant reductions in grain yields of 40 million tons attributed to global climate change.
David Pimentel is a Professor in the Entomology Department at Cornell University
Richard Alley … “Scientific consensus is not an agreement on opinions — is Picasso better than Rembrandt, or pepperoni better than anchovies?”
How does the United Nations learn the consensus on climate change?
Get hundreds of scientists with expertise on the subject, being sure they come from many countries, many backgrounds, and many age groups, and that all of them agree to the public act of spending a large fraction of their time over several years assessing the science of the world on the topic.
As this writing team works through several drafts, make sure that the world —hundreds of individuals and groups, governments and nongovernmental organizations, technical experts and interested individuals — critiques the growing report.
Require the writing team to respond to each of the thousands of comments, in writing, based on the scientific literature. Have specially commissioned review editors watch over the process to ensure that the responses are timely, thorough, and scientifically based, and remind the members of the writing team that their responses will become public documents, so that the world can check that the final report really is the distillation of the world’s science.
When the governments of the world exercise their right to be sure that the summary for policymakers of the final document is as clear and useful as possible, take the members of the science team to the meeting and give them power — changes requested by the governments must be consistent with the underlying science.
The ‘consensus’ on climate change is not something cooked up by a few scientists, or to which they flock in the hopes of fame, glory or funding. Scientific consensus is not an agreement on opinions — is Picasso better than Rembrandt, or pepperoni better than anchovies?
Rather, the ‘consensus’ is formed through the great efforts of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), or national academies of science including the United States National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences (NRC/NAS, which has somewhat different procedures but works equally hard to insure the quality of the results, and which provides the US Government with advice on many other topics in addition to climate change).
Science is a vast, seething, exciting mixture of new ideas and old, data and models and hypotheses, striving for the truth. The IPCC or NRC/NAS fulfill their mission by developing reports under clear, carefully overseen, well–understood protocols, insisting that their members and representatives complete the task of providing the best scientific evidence to the people who paid for it. Humanity can always improve, so the consensus is not the last word, but scientific consensus as embodied in the IPCC or the NRC/NAS reports is the best information that humans have produced on the subject.
Richard B. Alley is Evan Pugh Professor in the Department of Geosciences, and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State UniversityP. Dee Boersma … “It’s a lot like the debate on smoking, where for years some scientists said we can’t be sure smoking is hazardous to health. While society waited for higher levels of proof many people died.”
A consensus from scientists on global warming means that, in spite of some scientific uncertainty, there is still general agreement that humans have increased greenhouse gases to such an extent that we are now changing the climate of the earth.
Scientists as a group tend to be want to be sure 95 out of 100 times, which is such a high degree of correctness that we may say things are not significant when we are correct only 94 times out of 100. When we don’t have proof at such a high level we may make an error and say something is not true when in fact it is true.
Scientists now as a group think that global warming is happening, and that waiting to be correct 95 out of 100 times may mean that we conclude that global warming is not happening when it is happening. A consensus of scientists means that scientist are worried that global warming is occurring. It’s a lot like the debate on smoking, where for years some scientists said we can’t be sure smoking is hazardous to health. While society waited for higher levels of proof many people died. The question is, what is the trade–off by making a mistake on a decision on whether something is or isn’t true?
Scientists are generally in agreement that humans are now causing global climate change. What a consensus means now is that scientists think to say humans are not causing climate change is likely to be untrue.
P. Dee Boersma holds the Wadsworth Endowed Chair in Conservation Science in the Department of Biology at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Two of the scientists that Earth & Sky contacted this week responded that they either do not believe there is a scientific consensus, or they do not believe the consensus on global warming has value.
John R. Christy … “Consensus at its heart is a political notion based on powers of persuasion, nuance and belief.”
The IPCC would do well to define what each participant truly contributes to each product (i.e. Summary for Policy Makers vs. Full Text) so that the world would know that thousands of scientists never reached a “consensus” on anything. When the Full Text is developed, “consensus” is a concept held by the chapters’ Lead Authors who often ignore or contradict positions offered by the Contributing Authors and Reviewers.
Whomever may be right or wrong, this means “consensus” is a prop. Further, the SPM authorship is even more restrictive regarding who actually has influence; certainly the Lead Authors, Contributing Authors and Reviewers of the chapters have virtually no power to change the SPM. This power lies with the Convening Lead Authors and selected aides, a much smaller contingent.
Consensus at its heart is a political notion based on powers of persuasion, nuance and belief. We don’t argue about the acceleration of gravity, but we do argue quite a bit about how the climate system works.
Two examples from the SPM WGI come to mind. (1) ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.’ Why not take the passion out and say ‘It is warmer today than it was 100 years ago?’ The latter states a fact, recognizing temperatures are always changing, so it is either warmer or colder than before. The former, however, conjures up fear like a tabloid headline. Or (2) ‘Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid–20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’ Why not be more honest and say, ‘Our current climate models are incapable of replicating the temperature variations of the past 50 years without a push from the way we believe greenhouse gas increases may affect the climate, though other factors may be responsible too.?’
Could it be, as implied by these two examples, that the function of “consensus” is to minimize the uncertainty and ambiguity that is inherent in the immensely complex, non–linear dynamical system we call climate, and enhance the perceived credibility of the process?
John R. Christy, Alabama State Climatologist, is Director of the Earth System Science Center and Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
Richard S. Lindzen … “the very idea of consensus in such an immature and multi– faceted subject as climate change should be suspicious ab initio.”
Frankly, the very idea of consensus in such an immature and multi– faceted subject as climate change should be suspicious ab initio. Consensus is largely a propaganda claim designed to relieve ordinary people of the need to understand the issue. This is neither good for science nor for public policy. There are some things that most scientists involved in this issue agree on. The earth’s mean temperature is always changing, and over the past century, there have been two periods where this temperature has gone up a few tenths of a degree and one period when it went down. The net warming is not so different from claiming that in flipping a coin three times, you came up with two heads. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has also gone up. Beyond this, there is mostly weak science and confusion. It is pretty easy to show that current models are likely exaggerating the sensitivity of climate to increased CO2, and the ice age records show temperature changes preceding CO2 changes by 100’s to thousands of years.
Thus, the basis for concern is weak. The arguments supporting this are numerous, and since you only want a brief paragraph, I’ll stop here. But, if you want more information, please ask. I would simply point out that this issue has been presented as something that all scientists agree on for 20 years. We’ve also been told for twenty years that we only have about 5 years left to take action.
The report to be issued on Friday is not a report by climate scientists. Rather, Working Group II deals with impacts. That is to say, they assume the worst scenarios are true, and spin tales about the implications of these scenarios for their own fields. This is a good formula for creating scare stories, but it is far from any area of consensus. Indeed, it is far from science, itself.
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.
I would first like to state that I am very concerned about conserving out resources and eliminating our dependence on petrolium products. I think we should spend more money on alternative energy research and less on global warming research. I find it interesting that the two sceptics are Professors of Atmospheric Science. Global warming scare tactics are doing more damage than good.
What I find most fasinating is that mind set that is similar to a discussion with someone addicted to tabbacco. Most everyone acknowledges that it is undoubtedly bad for ones health, for most this is common sense. However, to the addict he qualifies that “Oh we are all going to die from something!” , which my response is “ Why speed up the process? “. If we are of the general consensus that carbon emmisions are not benificial for our well being, and that ultimately it is, and will create a near catastrophic event. Then the debate is over, and the action on the solution is imperative. This science has been out there for 20 to 30 yrs, most people have been hiding their head in the sand, trying to ignore the issue, or exploit the resources that created the problem to begin with, pounding the drum of intangible proof, while stuffing their pockets with our childrens future at risk. Now we are at a point that nature is responding with the predicted conditions that were projected at least 20 yrs ago, I know becuase I took the time to read them. Anybody who really wants to see an example that may be convincing need only go to the FEMA declared disaster history site and look at the number of declared disasters since they have been registered in the 50’s. They will find that from the 50’s to the early 90’s there is a progressive yet not alarming declaration of events, however from the mid 90’s to now we have doubled to near 600 hundred events per decade the majority of which are climate related. The numbers don’t lie, people do!. People who are in tune with nature can atest that there are significant changes occuring with in our ecosystems, yet in our sophisticated society we have a dendency to consider those individuals as not as intelligent as a doctor , lawyer, politician , or scientist. If we don’t get on the ball we aren’t going to need the later professions, they will have talked themselves out of a job. Now that I’m thinking about it, that might be a blessing in disquise. Be it as it may,those of us that have common sense know that the 11th hour 59th minute is here, we don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out, what we need to do is side step the people who are trying to obfuscate the truth and channel all available resources into a clean enviroment. Oh yeah!,and in order to do this you have to betray the purse, that’s the hard part. It’s like the old adage; “ if it were’nt for the last second; nothing would get done at all”. Or, 90% percent of wisdom , is being wise!...............................on time!
Raul, it’s interesting that you compare the global warming deniers to people with tobacco addiction. You’re in good company with that thought! That same analogy has been used by Naomi Oreskes, who is at University of California San Diego. She’s very much admired in the science community as someone who is trying to understand the denial about global warming.
Earlier this week, Oreskes sent us a 35-page (or so) paper about why people are in denial about global warming. We couldn’t reprint the whole paper, but we hope to interview her soon. And we did find a shorter piece by her about the global warming consensus. This one is from 2004: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.
Thank you for commenting, Raul!
What really worries me is that people do not clearly see how global warming affects them directly and indirectly. They are blinded by greed and hide behind the pretext of insufficient “scientific” data. When are they going to see that we are bleeding dry and polluting the only planet we know of which can support us.
And now when the folly of our ways is pointed out, they say “ ummm, but where’s the ‘scientific’ proof ? “. Well, put a frog in cold water and slowly boil it and what happens ? Frog Soup !
There is something even worse. There are people who might even say, “ Look I know global warming is happening. But I cannot afford to loose profits / direct budget to fix that ! There is no scientific proof and anyways, who cares ? “. Talk about digging our own grave.
In the city of Bangalore, India, where I live, five years ago, if the temperature hit 28 degrees Celsius in April, it would rain. Today even at 36 degrees Celsius in April, there is not a hint of cloud in the sky ! If this isn’t proof of global warming and climate change then I don’t know what the HELL is.
Dear Amogh Chakravarthy,
Your comments are welcome and are so directly and wonderfully expressed. Thanks.
With each passing day in recent months, I have become more hopeful, after literally years of living with a dark vision about the future of life for our children. Until very recently, I have feared the conspicuous greed, the self-absorption, the easy willingness to mortgage the future of our own children, the careless disregard for the wellbeing of children everywhere and the not so benign neglect of the Earth by the masters of the universe in my not-so-great generation of elders would occur unnoticed until there was no time left for life as we know it. Life as we imagine it for our children would come to an unnecessary and unwelcome end.
At least to me, too many selfish leaders appear to be taking our children down a primrose path to the degeneration of life as we know it and the Earth.
This generation of leaders thinks of no one but themselves, their minions, their McMansions, their private jets and limos, their home theaters and swimming pools. They keep to themselves in distant hideouts and private clubs from which they observe the seemingly endless growth of their colossal personal fortunes. That is the way of wealth and power in the world today. That their “living without limits” way of life is patently unsustainable is not something they want to talk about.
My change of heart and mind follows the wondrous sounds of loud and clear voices of the sons and daughters of Galileo, who are speaking out for the sake of helping the rest of us better understand how the world in which we live works as well as how human beings could more realistically fit into the natural order of living things. Perhaps, a more accurate understanding of the world and our placement in it will make it possible for us to actually help our children survive the ruinous effects of the greedy behavior of their elders.
Deborah Byrd has reminded us in these blogs of the famous equation (the shibboleth) of my generation, the catchwords she has heard amny times during her life: money = happiness. And, guess what, the equation has a correlate: more money must equal more happiness. So there can seemingly be no end to human greediness.
Who knows, perhaps the workings of God’s great gifts to humanity…. SCIENCE and DEMOCRACY.... will somehow preserve our children, life as we know it, and the living Earth from obscene human greed.
Always,
Steve
Amogh,
Where I live, where I’ve lived my whole 56 years of life, the weather has just become … unpredictable. It’s early April now, and, in this southerly climate, it should be warm enough for getting up at dawn and swimming in the local springs. But this morning it’s 42 degrees F.! That’s totally amazing to me. It’s cold in April.
We often hear scientists describe global warming as Earth having a fever. And so you would think that global warming would just mean more heat.
But I’m reminded of what it feels like to have a fever. You are hot all over, and also chilled at the same time. This is a very unscientific thought, and merely my own. But perhaps the same is happening with the Earth. Fever and chills. Dryness and dampness, where before there was more balance.
And indeed scientists say that global warming will bring more erratic weather and more extreme weather events.
Deborah
Steve, I’m glad you are feeling more hopeful! I’m also feeling hopeful, still, about the world.
That’s one thing that saddens me about the global warming naysayers, who speak of “scare tactics” from those who believe global warming is both real and caused by humans.
The fact is, personally, I’m not scared.
Humans have always faced challenges, and this is our challenge.
Deborah
Hi Deborah,
Yes, yes, yes to what you see and say. Of the many lessons we learned as children, there was one I recall at this moment: The deepest darkness of the night always precedes the dawning of light.
Finally, mercifully, out of pitch blackness we are able to actually see rays of light. This is the way the world looks to me.
There is something that does terrify me. It has not to do with “scare tactics” of one sort or another nor threats of any kind. It is the pernicious concentration of wealth and power in the modern political economy as well as the positive valuation of unbridled human greed in the world that are so alarming.
Always,
Steve
Steve, greed in the world is definitely alarming. But I believe there are equal amounts of goodness in the world. As it’s always been, perhaps. Yin and yang, dark and light.
The trick is to choose the light, when possible, and when the way can be seen toward it! I suspect most of us are trying to do that, in our way.
Deborah
Global warming is a hoax. The IPCC is a United nations organization and therefore has no validity. The earth has warmed and cooled since its inception and will continue to do so. Destroying our economy and way of life will simply put mankind into feudal slavery and will depopulate the earth of humans. The earth will not care and will continue to warm and cool with no regard to anything we did or did not do.
Where is the data that “proves” mankind has affected the climate? It has not been shown to me. Also, if human caused global warming is real, what is the problem? More heat will mean more moisture in the atmosphere and that will speed up biological reactions. Ie, the plants will grow faster which will bind more carbon into solid. Ergo, the feedback mechanism is working. We don’t control nature, in fact we are part of it.
i would like an answer to the climate changes thru earths history. if you look at geological evidence you will find that cycles of cooling and heating have always occured. what about the one which occured around 25000 years ago? mabey someone can tell me what mankind was doing to cause those climate changes.
Ben, Sam,
What is your take on the scientific study of ice core samples? According to this article, CO2 levels are higher now than at any other time in the last 650,000 years, and that this spike in atmospheric CO2 is accelerating at a greater pace than ever observed in natural cycles.
A reponse to my query would be most appreciated.
Thank you.
Bruce McClure
well first off i would need to see the data by this group. which i might add is like publishing my own report from my shed stating im an authority. then we must assume that i am ignoring hundreds of reports and papers by a multitude of proper geologists, scientists,and climatologists,. then mabey you could sway my view so that it is in line with yours and you can be happy. lets face fact fossil records show that over 90 percent of all species that have ever lived are extinct and not at the hands of man . if you truly belive that a system be it by evolution or intelligent design. can last on its own for billions of years yet fall victim to mere men then you shopuld read reports from history and other papers that may not go along with your belief of the moment. you simply belive in only one page on the internet and it is your reality.i plead with you …do not belive everything you see posted on your computer. go to school or visit a free public library…PLEASE!!!!!...
i should have added that the oldest ice core sample is recoded at 1 million years out of almost 5 billion years whereas.geological records date the entire 5 billion.also ice cores are examined on the basis of water molecules,using pre determined ages,and ice flow calculations which are ….for a better term subject to the observer.this means that the oldest record we can find of the climate is by looking at ice within the last million years as apposed to the last hundred thousand million years.and by all means we should run around waving our hands in the air shouting the sky is falling the sky is falling.buyt playing the devils advocate for a moment lets say the report is correct and the planet is on the brink off collapse. and the u.s. decides to be trend setters and change opur ways . what is your solution? it is easy to be chicken little or a person that is critical of others. what is hard is having an answer!
Dear Sam,
Your comments are helpful.
You state,
“playing the devils advocate for a moment lets say the report is correct and the planet is on the brink off collapse. and the u.s. decides to be trend setters and change opur ways . what is your solution?”
We could certainly choose to sign and implement international treaties to which most nation-states are currently signatories. The Kyoto Protocol is one example. What has been terribly disappointing is the realization that the US has not signed a large number of international treaties already approved by a great majority of countries worldwide. These steps represent not more than a simple start at playing catch-up.
If we were to turn our attention, as you suggest, to being “trend-setters,” then I would suggest we realistically consider the possibility that real global challenges are potentially posed to humanity by human propagation, production and consumption activities now overspreading the surface of the Earth.
Let us allow that scientific evidence not “political economy ideology” or the religion of “wealth and power accumulation” will guide our actions. Then, the catchwords “change our ways,” as you put it, will become a shibboleth for humanity…...beginning on this very day, extending into the foreseeable future, and beyond.
Sincerely,
Steve
Sam,
You say (comment #9) that you’d like to see the data regarding the scientific study of ice core samples? By all means, go for it. You don’t have to be stuck, as you say, to “only one page on the internet.” For one example, the article I provided refers to the European ice coring project. So you can do a search, putting in the words “european project, ice coring.” Voila! There you have it: European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica. You’ll find all kinds of links, including contact information to various scientists.
In this way, you can research to your heart’s content.
Cheers!
Bruce
i am a man of simple education but i know the difference between a study reporting on carbon monoxide vs carbon dioxide. one being the product of biological respiration vs one being a product of mechanical gas.if you want to convice average joe public, of your point you must be able to produce proof of your argument. here in florida people were in a panic because shark attacks were up last year.some people asked me why. i had to explain that the 1997 almanac for fla stated thet 15,000,000 people lived in fla with 30,000,000 projected to visit that same year. now if you consider that more people will be born and less will die the next year statistics prove that even if everyone gets in the water once a year the number of shark attacks will go up. so will the number of big macs sold and pogo stick prodution.anyway.if more people are born co2 will go up.volcanoes and natural processes will not sign the accords or treaties. if you want to help i suggest you spend less time and energy by turning off your computer,do not drive your car, and do not eat at fast food restraunts. this would serve as an example to the rest of us. voila! you cannot change minds with anything but facts.
i should add that i ride my bike to work and only have a computer at work but i must confess i love fast food.
Sam,
You’re in good company. I don’t own a car, and I ride my bicycle, too! That and other extraneous remarks aside, I still don’t know what your take is on the scientific study of ice core samples – my initial question to you in comment # 8.
Bruce
Dear Bruce and Sam,
Y’all are on the right track to stop the pernicious burning of fossil fuels. Thanks for being good examples the rest of us can follow.
By way of comparison, the “footprint” I make on the surface of Earth is much too large and gaudy. It embarrasses me to report that my footprint is too much like the gigantic footprints of the overly ‘successful’ masters of the universe in my not-so-great generation of adamantly silent and insistently irresponsible elders of whom I have been critical in recent years. I am not proud of my situation and will to do better.
As ever,
Steve
i own 2 cars but i find it better to ride my bike for a number of reasons. my take on the ice core samples is simple, i feel that they prove nothing about natural cycles the earth from time to time might go through. this is not new. i mean, cycles of cooling and warming , nor do i belive that man alone can destroy the planet. its like in the 70s when pollution was the alarming terror or the 50s when drugs and rock and roll were feared. people are naturally reactionary and alarmists try to yell the sky is falling. less than 2,00 years ago the most learned men on the planet knew for a fact the earth was flat. 2,000 years from now we will most likley be viewed as being clueless barbarians. other nations less advanced want a level playing field. and liberal minded people want to get the message out that they are scared of ….whatever.everyone wants to turn aginst something or someone they belive has an advantage over them. i feel that all of my comments are not extraneous. they are relevant. you see if you use energy to run your computer your car and support rain forest destruction to feed the fast food market you contribute to the problem while crying about it. if there is a better way of doing… anything..about anything i am for it but in the mean time im not going to walk the streets with a sandwich board claiming the end is near. and it could well be possible that mans demise is a part of the evolution of a higher intelligence to follow .reality is weirder than we know. just look at the world of physics. personally i want to see more research into behavioral genetics. anyway i digress thank you for making me think about the issue at hand.my weekend is at hand and im going camping. this has made me look into things more than i had before and that is why this site and others like it are needed to bring about changes for the better.
Thank you Sam!
Sam,
More than 2,000 years ago, Greek astronomers and the educated world knew the world was round. In fact, an insightful astronomer named Aristarchus even thought the Earth and the planets revolved around the sun, though he couldn’t prove it. Proofs are hard to come by in science.
Thanks for joining in on the conversation, and enjoy your camping trip!
Bruce
actually most of the learned world did in fact still belive the world was flat. i thought most people knew of the greek beliefs of the time but you forget the population of the rest of the world… i know what you have pointed out. you miss my point entirely. im not writing a term paper. im trying to make a general point. but i conceed the battlefield of having an opinion.actually the belif that the world was round was not new even 3000 years ago but i digress.the point is we do not know what we dont know.if i were angry i would simply try to pick apart spelling errors in a blog.which i make many of because its not that important. i watched an episode on pbs on supervolcanoes. which proved the point that supervolcanoes can produce co2 emmisions that we should be aware of. while im on a rant al gore was the vice president of the united states for 8 years why didnt he cry about an inconvient truth while he had control of the mike?(microphone).....whoo…well back to reality. look. i went to school in the 70s and i was fearful of nuclear war and pollution producing rosmaries baby. neither happened and i was trully worried for nothing. people care about the world, more than you know, and people are wiser more than you know, and people are generally more caring than the news or internet will lead one to belive.before anyone jumps onto the media bandwagon of global warming find out if it may have happened before. this has become boring sorry for wasting your time im on to cute overload.com to see the kitty pictures…that my friends is what life should be about…love everyone.enjoy your life.and know that people will do the things they do.
oh hey i went to sanibel island florida and while reading an audobon book on n. american shells i learned that you can actually find left handed whorls in shells meaning that some snails are left handed. how cool is that? we live in an interesting age of information…..thank you mr block and mrs byrd for adding your time and your site
Dear Sam,
It concerns me that people, who are always free to believe anything, might choose to abandon reason and good science for silliness, magical thinking and the wishes for a picturebook-like fantasy land.
Sincerely,
Steve
i could not agree more thats why we should seek out sound facts and not listen to propoganda, buzwords, rhetoric and the opinion of the out of touch rich and famous.being free to believe anything produces change and change every day is part of evoulution, and i mean progress and personal evolution. i want to learn something every day so that i evolve to help myself people i care for and the world at large and this is what it takes to advance the human race. and if you read my comments you will see that im not in the belief that fairies or otherworld powers are going to step in and change anything. im simply saying lets think people..as for good science im with you all the way. good science and science that fits an agenda are different animals.
that was too funny please call back. to whom it may concern