Have your say about global warming
By Judy Lowe | 03.31.09
Here’s your opportunity to have a little influence — or at least express your views — on the US policy toward climate change, or global warming.
Congress has asked the National Academies to detail America’s Climate Choices. Beginning with a two-day conference that ends today, they will be working with top-notch scientists and the public during the coming months to answer these questions, among others:
- What short-term actions can be taken to respond effectively to climate change?
- What promising long-term strategies, investments, and opportunities could be pursued to respond to climate change?
- What are the major scientific and technological advances needed to better understand and respond effectively to climate change?
- What are the major impediments to responding effectively to climate change, and what can be done to overcome these impediments?
Through April 17, everyone has the opportunity to provide input to the committee. Send questions and comments to to ACCInput-main@nas.edu. “You can suggest questions you hope the study will address or submit literature or opinion pieces you would like considered during the study process,” the invitation says.
“Submissions are limited to three attachments (size limit 2MB) and must include a summary (500 word maximum) of the materials provided and their importance to the America’s Climate Choices Study.”
You may also submit e-mail feedback to four panels:
- Panel on Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change
- Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change
- Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change
- Panel on Informing Effective Decisions and Actions Related to Climate Change
This is especially timely since The New York Times reported this morning that “two senior House Democrats will unveil a 600-page draft global warming and energy bill today that they hope will prompt an intense round of internal negotiations, culminating with passage out of the Energy and Commerce Committee before June.”
In The Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital blog, Keith Johnson calls the bill “opening salvo in what will be one of the biggest battles on the Hill.”
So that’s another way to be heard — by contacting your elected representatives.
<< Does lighting candles for Earth Hour defeat the purpose? | MainComments
2. AntonioSosa | 03.31.09
More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/
Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
“Progressive” (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us.
If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the United Nations and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.
3. Mark Schaffer | 03.31.09
Hello larrydalooza,
The vast weight of the research as summarized nicely by the IPCC shows you to be factually wrong. For readers interested in the well over one hundred year history of that research please click the “Start Here” option at the top of this webpage to start becoming educated:
http://www.realclimate.org
Take your time as there is quite a lot of legitimate research and data summarized there and it will take some months to digest it.
Good luck,
Mark Schaffer
4. damo Ross | 04.01.09
Mark,
Here is a website for you to digest.
and another
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com
I am no expert so can make no claims either way but I am certainly not convinced that AGW has been proved.
Have you watched this debate on youtube? It has one of the main guys from the realclimate website. The “deniers” gave a convining argument the AGW crowd just used the consenus argument and did some name calling and presented little if any science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz8KiA-YMt8
Finally why have other planets in our solar system warmed?
Also what caused the medieval warm period and the maunder minimum?
Cheers
5. John Brunette | 04.01.09
One need only look at the projections of the models used by the IPCC to see that the climate models are faulty. None has predicted the current cooling trend. A huge reason is that these models to not account for variations in solar activity. If you look at the sun activity, leading up to the end of solar cycle 23, the sun was getting more and more active. When this happens, more energy makes it to earth for several reasons. More mass ejections take place, and the magnetic orientation of the solar wind produced is twisted. A hard southern twist matches up incorrectly with our magnetic protective bubble, and rather than repel the energy, we draw it in.
Solar Cycle 24 is having a hard time getting ramped up, leaving us in a solar minimum. The effects are clear. We are cooling, and given the contrast from the relatively recent high activity (ending in 2007) to the present silence, we are going to continue to see dramtic reductions in global temperature. These reductions will be far more pronounced than any AGW projections are in the opposite direction, if the sun doesn’t start cranking up soon.
Again, the models do not account for this. Why not? Because it’s very difficult to produce a political solution to regulate the sun.
Also, CO2 is a natural part of our lives. Classifiying it as the vilian is ridiculous at best. Greenhouses often pump in extra CO2 to help their plants grow faster, and that’s the worst that will happen with our miniscule increases. Also note that a warming planet releases far more CO2 than our tailpipes do, and a cooling planet will absorb more CO2. There asre some reports that CO2 levels are already dropping, and it’s certainly not due to anyone attempting to meet Kyoto protocols.
6. Mark Schaffer | 04.01.09
Hi damo Ross,
I have looked at those sites and they have no credibility in the science community. They are a waste of your time with the constant disinformation they peddle but I doubt you have the science background to understand this.
As for the rest of your points, they are nicely debunked with a little searching on the Real Climate site. The canard about other planets warming is a poorly thought out bit that is debunked here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
Try again.
7. DJ | 04.01.09
Now that the hype is over, let’s just get back to working on technology to make our lives on this planet better and by keeping in mind we only have one planet we still need to minimize our impact on our most valuable resource, breathable air… but with scientifically correct methods not politically correct motives
8. John Brunette | 04.01.09
The myth that solar activity is not responsible for our late 20th century warming can be debunked with your own eyes.
Here’s a link to a movice of solar activity from May of 1998 during a solar maximum:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/bestofsoho/Movies/C2_may98/C2_may98.mov
On any given day, go out to spaceweather.com or solarcycle24.com and look at the current activity.
For perspective on the magnitude of these events, here’s a photo of a massive prominance, with scale version of earth:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/top10/top10_detail_molten304_earth.html
If the sun isn’t responsible, I’m Elvis.
9. Anthropogenic Solar Chaos | 04.01.09
deep solar minimum
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure:
A 55-year low in solar radio emissions:
A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”:
10. Damo Ross | 04.02.09
Mark,
You are correct I do not have the scientific knowledge but what I can see is lorry loads of funding for scientists who believe in AGW and none for the opposite view. There are lots of other theories/arguments etc.
Also just about everything from frogs mating habits to acne are now linked to global warming so scientists can climb aboard the global warming gravy train. See link below…
http://churchofglobalwarming.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=42
With all the funding they receive it is easy to see why you have been duped!
You are obviously a smart guy so just try supporting the “deniers” for a while and I am sure you will at least find some margin for error in the AGW theory i.e. keep an open mind.
11. Daniel | 04.02.09
The Earth has had an ice age approximately every 11,400 years. Would anyone care to guess how long it has been since the last one?
12. Thad | 04.03.09
A fine representation of April the first - However when one studies the phony evidence of global warming it is obvious that the claim is phony…
13. Roni Bell Sylvester | 04.03.09
Please check out http://www.GoodNeighborLaw.com
It’s a terrific non-partisan, go to place for facts and truth on climate change (weather or not…it happens) and more.
What’s most disturbing about the global warming scam, are the policies that are being breathlessly (and thoughtlessly) made based on lies.
The money being…and to be made from the perpetuation of, will make Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme look like pencil box theft compared to this…Al Gore’s scam.
14. Wayne Bateman | 04.15.09
Even Shakespeare is speaking out on global warming:
Worrisome Falter of Global Climate
On day of Feb. 2, 2007, `twere the thinking panel for United Nations wherewithal to ponder unhappy climate change in vantage to declare with a sudden vigor sooth that proof of warming this world o`er be “unequivocal,” alack th` effect of human contrivance hast “very likely” come to be cause of greater import in nature as in name for well on fifty year. . .
15. DaNews | 05.12.09
The Argument on Climate change is not one of will it happen but rather one of, is it possible that it could happen. It is like when you buy insurance for your car you don’t buy it because you think that you are going to get into an accident but you buy it because there is a possibility that you may get into an accident.
And this is the principal of risk management.
The majority of people involved in researching Anthropogenic Climate Change are in agreement that there is a certain element of risk. Most of the arguments today centers around how high that risk is. There is credible evidence today that the climate has changed abruptly in the past. What is not clear is what caused these changes.
There are several theory’s that could be plausible for those shifts. i.e. Volcanic activity , abrupt changes in the thermohaline current and possibly meteoric impacts.
However today there is an alarming increase in CO2 concentration as measured from the start of the industrial revolution. And as you know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What is not quite clear is what kind of impact this will have on the climate. There are several theory’s on that.
(1) A substantial melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and will cause a devastating rise in sea level flooding all low lying areas. New York, LA, Florida, New Orleans, The Netherlands, parts of England, France, India and many more.
(2) The introduction of these huge amounts of fresh water now land locked in the Antarctic and Greenland could disrupt the Termohaline Ocean current and start a new ice age.
(3) And then maybe none of these things will ever come to pass (I am hoping for this)
So then what should we do?
Well we could do nothing and hope for the best.
Or we could take action and maybe avoid some of the worst projections.
However if we chose to do nothing and the worst of the Projections come to pass then we are going to experience a catastrophe on a global scale that would make world war 2 look like a walk in the park.
So now the question is this what is the likelihood of sudden climate change?
Well that depends on who you talk to and can range from 0% to 100%.
Most of the 0% percent is from a few scientists and mostly politicized news stations.
The same can be said for those that belong in the 100% group
So it is possible that it is somewhere in the middle say 50%
But for the sake of argument lets say that number is 20% or even 10 %
So now lets use my earlier argument
Would you refuse to buy car insurance if you knew there was a 10% chance that you could get into an accident. Or would you not make sure your child was seated securely if you knew that there was a 10% chance you could get in to an accident. I know you could say that you would not drive if the odds where that bad. But that would amount to the same thing as taking significant action towards stopping global climate change.
Are you willing to risk your kids or grand kids future with odds like that??
Most of the Data for judging in how high that risk is should be scrutinized for political ideology’s. Reason for that is when you take a look at all the news stations for instance.
MSNBC has a Democratic Agenda
FOX has a Republican Agenda
NBC has a Democratic Agenda.
All these news stations can not be trusted to give you a true account on the scientific issues. Yes and that would include Olberman, O’reilly, Hannity, Beck, Rachel Madow, the Ed show and the list goes on. Because they all politicize the issue of Climate change.
Personally I was not happy when All Gore injected himself into this debate. Because he politicised the whole debate to a much greater extend. And he has in my opinion questionable motives for doing so.
This is why (somewhat unfortunate) the only places you can go to and get peer reviewed data is from *** or NAS. All the data there has been Peer reviewed world wide meaning criticised to death changed peer reviewed again and then hopefully published.
For myself as a scientist I can see there is a problem that most likely needs to be addressed. From a perspective of Risk Management I in fact say that we don’t have a choice but to act now. But I also say this, you don’t have to believe me do your own research and create your own risk assessment.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. larrydalooza | 03.31.09
CO2 has not been proven as the PRIMARY influence on irremediable climate change… let alone ANY influence. The powerful seek a villain in order to curtail freedom. They have chosen CO2 (a trace gas) which is akin to demonizing butterflies for hurricane activity. Now, they have strong armed the acceleration of this CO2 crazy train and we are left with cleaning up it’s derailment. Harvesting naturally occurring energy is honest enough without creating a villain. Stop lying. CO2 is not a problem.