Step It Up

posted by Peter Rothberg on 04/09/2007 @ 11:09am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (76)

Subscribe Now

A new global warming report issued on April 5 by the United Nations paints a near-apocalyptic vision of Earth's future: hundreds of millions of people short of water, extreme food shortages in Africa, billions of people in Asia at risk from flooding; millions of species sentenced to extinction; rampant disease.

Despite its grim vision, the report was quickly criticized by many scientists surveyed by the Los Angeles Times, who said its findings were watered down by governments seeking to deflect calls for immediate action. Even in diluted form, the report paints a bleak picture, noting that the early signs of warming are already apparent.

The report is the second of four scheduled to be issued this year by the UN, which assembled more than 2,500 scientists worldwide to give their best predictions of the consequences of a few degrees' increase in global temperature. The 1,572-page document was endorsed by officials from more than 120 countries, including the United States. The first report, released in February, said global warming was irreversible but could be moderated by large-scale societal changes.

On Saturday, April 14, at more than 1,300 simultaneous events coast to coast, Americans of different hues and views will call for such large-scale changes by imploring Congress to enact immediate cuts in carbon emissions and pledge an 80 percent reduction by 2050.

The true expression of a viral grassroots movement, organized online through word of mouth, email outreach and the Internet community, Step it Up! is the largest day of citizen action focusing on global warming in our nation's history and the largest environmental protest of any kind since Earth Day 1970.

Conceived by writer Bill McKibben and six recent graduates of Middlebury College, the initiative has been embraced by environmental organizations, religious networks, campus groups and individuals from virtually all walks of life. The Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council and the National Wildlife Federation have all committed real efforts to organizing Step It Up! rallies. Student groups have been particularly enthusiastic, led by Energy Action, the PIRGs and the Campus Climate Challenge campaign, which has thrown its organizational weight and energy behind Step It Up!, as well as the evangelical student movement, which has also embraced the cause.

As McKibben writes in an open letter on the Step It Up! website, "The enormous participation in today's movement is a wake-up call to legislators from across the country. Their constituents are urgently demanding that America get on the path towards reducing carbon emissions before it is too late."

Along with lots of marches, rallies and concerts, some of the activities this Saturday will creatively highlight the dangers and losses of a rapidly warming earth. There'll be ski mountaineers in Wyoming descending the shrinking Dinwoody Glacier; hikers ascending Oregon's threatened Mt. Hood; scuba divers underwater photographing the endangered coral reefs off Key West; rock climbers hanging banners from Seneca Rocks in West Virginia; gardeners planting native trees, shrubs, grasses and flowers in the Shartel median at 33rd Street and Shartel Avenue in Oklahoma City; demonstrators painting a blue line through downtown Seattle to illustrate how far the rising seas could penetrate; activists on the levees in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and Vermonters hauling sap from a maple sugar tree that is producing much earlier than it ever has before.

Join your voice to this growing chorus of people determined to save their planet. Click here to find an April 14 event near you, help spread the word or sign up to organize an event yourself. And watch the Step it Up! YouTube video below for tips on how to make your action as successful as possible.

Comments (76)

Most of these people are gonna have to build fires in trash cans in order to keep warm...it cold out there and many places have snow...but I am sure ALGORE and EDWARDS can sell them carbon credits for burning the wood scraps and trash to keep warm...at a discount with prepaid funds...mailed to ...Tennessee, via , Washington...

Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 11:16am
"On Saturday, April 14, at more than 1,300 simultaneous events coast to coast, Americans of different hues and views will call for such large-scale changes by imploring Congress to enact immediate cuts in carbon emissions and pledge an 80 percent reduction by 2050. "

Hopefull 1300 participants show up....and not the usual suspects, starting with Sheehan, Peta, ....

I also thought that in 10 years, according to ALGORE, it is all over anyway...so 2050 would be a better time to prepare for massive fishing trips? in Kansas? Right?

Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 11:19am
JM -- I'm really glad that your glib disregard for my descendants as well as yours is being dropped by most of your rightwing brethren. You'll get there somday soon when you finally realize that your own self-interest is actually wrapped up with the climate change crisis.

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 04/09/2007 @ 11:29am
My, my JM...what a good little troll. Bash the event and ignore the message underlying it. Climate scientists have gotten together and agreed and admitted climate change is real and heavily influenced by humanity. Even the politicos are unable to turn this pig into a posy - in spite of their best efforts at the meeting. In fact, this mildly politicized public summary will be followed by the full-fledged "apolitical" technical summary very soon.

Hopefully "rational" people will believe the experts - and who knows, we might actually soon have a POTUS who has both a spine and the ability to read. A what a different world THAT will be.

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/09/2007 @ 11:32am
Maasch-Technology is quite advanced and we'll have no problems staying warm.You may want to remember that you are using a computer.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 11:36am
I'm nobody,

Maasch skims these blog entries then his knee jerks so hard it hits the keyboard and lines and lines of gobbeldeygook gets spewed onto our screens!

Unless he says something remotely intelligent it's best not to give the village idiot too much attention!

Posted by freedomplease at 04/09/2007 @ 11:39am
JM -- I'm really glad that your glib disregard for my descendants as well as yours is being dropped by most of your rightwing brethren. You'll get there somday soon when you finally realize that your own self-interest is actually wrapped up with the climate change crisis.

Posted by PETER ROTHBERG

His only concern is for short term profits--the same myopic, dim witted , selve serving rationale that inhibits any kind of "common sense" approach to the problems.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/09/2007 @ 11:40am
Freedomplease-I'm still trying to figure out how a successful business person could have so much free time to post on here like Maasch does.Usually these people have little free time.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 11:43am
He's a legend in his own mind!

Posted by freedomplease at 04/09/2007 @ 11:48am
Peter,

I do realise changes are coming anmd never denied global warming since I first learned of it in the first grade..

What I am being so glib about, and I am being glib, is the method of discussion...you all POO-POO anyone , even scientists, who say.."stop, wait a second"....you just point our entire cart in a single direction and want to run full speed in the direction, the one the herd happens to be facing today,...I am asking for HONEST national debate..not political dog and pony shows with ALGORE in front,all the Dems behind pushing and some ball licker calling GORE A prophet......a little more honest debate, Peter...HONEST DEBATE...today we have none...just "chicken little lemming effect.."...and any disagreemnent or questions are being written off as nut jobs...We should question everything.

Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 11:52am
The first grade? What year was that?

Honest debate? Look at who's paying the scientists and you should be able to draw the correct conclusions.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/09/2007 @ 11:54am
And Peter,

..as you know, I support the demonstrations of all, even those I think totally wrong, so as to not lose the right to demonstrate...

but I would rather see a symposium, open and televised to the public, with all sides represented and all positions openly examined and discussed...not debated, but disscussed.

This is my main point...

Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 11:54am
"Climate scientists have gotten together and agreed and admitted climate change is real and heavily influenced by humanity."

and many have disagreed...lets look at why..and compare the research, side by side..openly..

Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 11:55am
And, Peter,

read the posts to my post and what do you see?

emotion tirades, name calling and nonsense...no real discusstion...

..and you wonder why many of us on another side are glib?

May be next time, huh.

Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 11:58am
Peter, I'm not in the "deniers" column as MAASCH is....so I'll simply say I think we should ALL do something individually to reduce CO2 emissions and I think I know who's example we should ALL follow.....Al Gore's.

I say we ALL form "carbon credit" companies, then continue our lifestyles as we have, with no changes (in fact, live it up...with large houses, private jets, and limos if we want).

And just buy carbon credits from that company.

If it's good enough for Al, it's good enough for all of us.....right?

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 12:00pm
Maasch-You don't come on here to debate or you wouldn't put down people who disagree with you.I did enjoy the way you blamed the left for your being glib,though.That was amusing.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 12:08pm
LvLiberty-Again,it isn't just the left.You live in a left/right,good/evil fantasy world.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 12:09pm
"Mask,

"Peter, I'm not in the "deniers" column as MAASCH is"

Mask, I am not a denier..I am not so sure it is our man made influence that causes major changes in a systyem that is in constant flux and has been since billins of years...and the data show conflicting conclusions.... and the models are not accurate enough...and this is just the start of the discusson...

Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 12:11pm
LvLiberty-I hear conservatives coming over to the Gore side on a regular basis now as does most everybody else,but you.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 12:14pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/09/2007 @ 12:11pm

I think the preponderance of evidence is there, JOHN.

And as I said, willing to make the changes necessary....just like Gore did. Start a carbon credits company, buy my carbon credits from it (odd? doesn't that mean I'm actually INVESTING in a company I'm a partner in?!?!)

And keep living my lifestyle as I like....even expand it!

"Good enough for Al, Good enough for us all" (thinking of copyrighting that...hehe)

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 12:21pm
LvLiberty-Auto emissions kill humans and none of your scientists have been able to refute that fact.It's time to clean up the mess we've made of the Creators creation and show a little love for God rather than show our love of money.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 12:26pm
As much as it's been glibly dismissed by some posters on here, I think the question of debating global warming is actually a very interesting one. First and foremost, it's just true that thorough discussion is probably a good thing before apocalyptic pronouncements are made. However, I think there is another aspect that isn't considered as much as it probably should be.

Whenever we make decisions, we tend to consider the likely outcomes of our actions. These outcomes, in turn, usually have two important components: probability and magnitude. In other words, when I'm weighing different outcomes that could result from a decision, I have to consider both the likelihood that they'll happen, and how good or bad it would be if they did.

This is important because it sets up a limiting principle to Maasch's analysis. I don't think we really need totally incontrovertible evidence to suggest that clear action against global warming, if such action might be effective, is called for. Instead, I think the brightline would be when we can say the following: given the really bad consequences that would follow if global warming were true, we should act if we have something along the lines of a preponderance of evidence. The more drastic the economic measures people want, the higher the burden of proof becomes. I think that's a relatively nuanced standard, which is certainly important since we need to be able to decide how much debate is enough. If a solid weight of neutral evidence seems to clearly suggest that global warming is taken place, I feel like that would meet this burden.

Posted by Thrawn at 04/09/2007 @ 12:41pm
LvLiberty-Whether or not human pollution is causing this one problem,for me,has no relevance which is why you never see me quoting scientists on this issue or mentioning this one problem.For me the issue is about loving the Creator and future generations which makes it a pollution issue.I think it's a mistake to focus on this one problem while ignoring all the other problems pollution and raping the Earth cause.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 12:47pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 12:47pm

I'M...just a bit of curiosity.....how do you transport yourself long or even short distances?

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 12:51pm
By Richard S. Lindzen Newsweek International

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators--and many scientists--seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature--a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week. Story continues below ↓advertisement

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down--not up--the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise--a dubious proposition--future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"--its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform--warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record--an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle--Al Gore's supposed mentor--is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate

Posted by looneylefties at 04/09/2007 @ 12:51pm
NASA RECENTLY SAID THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING ON MARS, VENUS AND THE OUTER PLANETS...DID WE CAUSE THIS BECAUSE WE SENT THE ROVERS TO MARS????

Posted by looneylefties at 04/09/2007 @ 12:53pm
Mask-I walk short distances and use an eco friendly car for long distances which I rarely need to use since I live in a city and can walk to stores.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 1:05pm
Looneylefties-As you already know,we have little information about long term weather patterns on outlying planets so repeating that is rather silly.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 1:07pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 1:05pm

Oh, okay....what's an "eco-friendly" car? Prius or Insight?

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 1:12pm
Mask-Prius.I'm going to the electric car once I'm completely set up and off the grid.I'm afraid that I do live my beliefs so you won't find any hypocrisy.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 1:17pm
JM - If you're really interested, there have been countless public forums of all types debating, dissecting and discussing the global warming issue. The ludicrious global warming deniers hav ebene given more than their fair shake in the media and the public mind. Now it's time to act.

MASK -- I'm shocked you don't hold yourself up to a higher ethical standard than Al Gore.

ZERO -- You're being too negative. And these are not at our parents marches. These are creative, in some cases empowering actions.

LL -- We try to rely on our own wits in this thread and generally aren't impressed by the ability to cut-and-paste an article.

LL -- NASA also says that there's global warming on earth. (Read James Hansen's stuff, among much else.) Do you believe them?

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 04/09/2007 @ 1:29pm
"we have little information about long term weather patterns "

YES EVEN THE WEATHERMAN WITH THE BEST COMPUTER MODELS CANNOT PREDICT WEATHER ACCURATELY FOR MORE THAN A FEW DAYS, BUT YET WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE WEATHER FORECASTS 50 YEARS OUT.....GLOBAL WARMING IS JUST ANOTHER WAY FOR BIG GOVERMENT SOCIALISTS TO REACH INTO OUR POCKETS AND CONTROL OUR LIVES....AINT GONNA HAPPEN THIS TIME FOLKS....BANK ON IT!!!!!

Posted by looneylefties at 04/09/2007 @ 1:31pm
The models are inaccurate, there's not enough data--same old excuses that have been milked forever. If you have an appreciation of the age of the ecosystem, how it has developed over millions of years, and then look at the amount of pollutants humans are creating, then you can easily recognize that there is a problem. Millions of years--humans cannot fathom that many years, it's beyond our comprehension--developing without all these human made extras; only a moron could fail understand that it is going to have an effect.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/09/2007 @ 1:32pm
MR. RBERG,

"LL -- We try to rely on our own wits in this thread and generally aren't impressed by the ability to cut-and-paste an article."

YES I SEE YOU TELLING THIS TO RESE AND PLUNGER ALL THE TIME...YET I I CAN EASILY SAY WHAT I POST IS MORE INFORMED AND BETTER WRITTEN THAN ANYTHING YOU POST ON THIS MISERBLE BLOG.....FUNNY HOW YOU TRAITORUS LIBZ CAN NEVER ADDRESS THE POINTS PUT TO YOU..

Posted by looneylefties at 04/09/2007 @ 1:34pm
JM

Note the IPCC summary notes a 90% confidence. This means there IS accommodation for other views. In fact, science by its very nature is refutable. When "other" ideas receive sufficient support then they become the accepted viewpoint (such as a heliocentric solar system, evolution, or a 4.6by old Earth - in the history of science) This does NOT mean we should not act when there is a predominant consensus on the issue however.

Looney

The name says it all....

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/09/2007 @ 1:40pm
....and for the record there's no bigger traitor to freedom and the USA than old GWB and his asses of Evil!

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/09/2007 @ 1:42pm
Any of you looney tune wingnuts ever make a terrarium when you were a kid (with the 2 liter coke bottles)? What do you think would happen to those plants in there if you pumped it full of carbon monoxide? (If not, that might be one explanation why you can't get your head out of your arses.)

That's what's going to happen to your decendants if we don't figure out that alternative energy isn't a cute tree-hugger issue, but a moral, spectrum-crossing issue.

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 1:46pm
Looneytunes-I did address and debunk your post as did others.The socialist plot thing is funny.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 1:50pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/09/2007 @ 1:51pm

The topic is global warming...not hurricanes. Nice try, trying to slip in there something that is off-topic. Typical of you though.

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 1:56pm
LvLiberty-Do you have anything that shows the political beliefs of the scientists who believe in the human cause of global warming?

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 1:56pm
The NIMBY ("not in MY back yard") factor is what's most in play here generally, and especially as rationalizations for inaction by our so-called "public servants."

It's nice to hear of individuals' efforts to economize against the toady tide of "conspicuous consumption," however. I take comfort from John Prine's "In Spite of Ourselves" as well.

Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2007 @ 2:00pm
LVLIBERTY, you are quoting this Richard S. Lindzen:

Richard S. Lindzen

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a distinguished professor of meteorology at MIT, is one of a small band of global warming skeptics used by industry to undermine and delay any kind of regulatory action meant to address the looming environmental crisis.

Lindzen was reported in 1995 to "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [1]

According to Ross Gelbspan, Lindzen and skeptics like him -- including Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others -- "assert flatly that their science is untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded campaign of [global warming] denial they have become interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation. Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized. By keeping the discussion focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it." [2]

Posted by whateverblah at 04/09/2007 @ 2:32pm
Rio-The real God is quite upset that you hate the creation to the degree that you do.Global warming isn't about temperatures in a particular area of the United States during a particular short period of time.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 2:53pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/09/2007 @ 2:48pm

Someone must have been left out of the "Inconvenient Truth" watch parties. Global warming equals extreme weather patterns, in both directions of the thermomater!

Oh, you thought you pulled a fast one didn't you. Oh, and by the way, God told me to tell you that the joke is on you.

Everyday you look like a bigger moron, maybe that's how you relate to your failed king so well.

Posted by BlueTexan at 04/09/2007 @ 2:53pm
BlueTexan-You can spot the uninformed by the way they believe that global warming simply means that every place gets warmer.It would be nice if that were true so one could plan on where to live by just moving to a very cold place and wait for it to warm up a bit.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 2:59pm
MASK -- I'm shocked you don't hold yourself up to a higher ethical standard than Al Gore.

Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 04/09/2007 @ 1:29pm

Sorry, PETER...was my sarcasm button malfunctioning?

Seriously, it's a GREAT retort....beyond any "debate" over global warming.

Let's ALL just live...like AL does. He IS the "leading voice" or "driving force" behind the climate change issue. So....let's do what HE does about it....start a carbon credit company and then "buy off" our carbon "footprint" from it, without altering our lifestyles that much.

Of course, I don't travel as much as the former Veep....so I'm already "doing my part...Give a Hoot!" (does that date me????)

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 3:01pm
It's not only important to reduce the emittance of greenhouse gasses, but also to protect the world's remaining plant life. The build-up of greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere will continue even if humans reduce their use of biofuels, because there will be less and less plant life to absorb the CO2, due to constant habitat destruction.

The real challenge isn't reducing CO2 emittance, but curbing population growth. With the Earth's population expected to double, much of the world's wildlife will be pushed to extinction because of humans' need for more land and water.

Posted by Zeddmen at 04/09/2007 @ 3:34pm
Liberty,

Lindzen's arguments have been refuted in many places. One of the best is here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-h ol-testimony/

He's changed his story over the years, from claiming that the earth is not warming, to now claiming that the earth is warming, but not due to human activity.

He also used to claim that the ice ages supported his hypothesis, until new information became available showing he was wrong. Now he simply doesn't mention the ice ages anymore as it doesn't support his hypothesis.

And apparently he believes in a vast scientific conspiracy against him. This really adds to his credibility.

Posted by whateverblah at 04/09/2007 @ 3:38pm
Liberty, at least pick a study that supports your argument. I know there are some out there.

Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for 100 years: study

Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.

"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, told AFP.

Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight meters per year," Yde said.

"We studied 95 percent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said.

The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985.

"A three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930, and the increase recorded since 1995 has sped up the ice melt," he said.

The effect of the rising temperatures in the 1920s and 1930s was "visible dozens of years later, and that of the 1990s will be (visible) in 10 or 20 years," Yde said, adding that he expected Greenland's glaciers to melt even faster in the future.

The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is "the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further," he said.

The study also showed new results on galloping glaciers, the name given to glaciers that surge very quickly for a few years, up to 50 meters a day, before advancing more slowly at a rate of 20 meters per year," he said.

"We have identified, thanks to new analyses of aerials photographs and satellite images, almost four times more galloping glaciers, or 75 compared to just 20 in previous estimates," he said.

The two authors of the study were to present their results on Monday at a conference in Cambridge, England on the impact of global warming on glaciers.

Posted by whateverblah at 04/09/2007 @ 4:19pm
EVERY climate model takes water vapor into account. That may be the single most ridiculous statement I've heard on this subject.

"All models predict the concentrations of water vapor to increase as the climate warms due to the rapid increase in saturation vapor pressure with temperature. Because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, this provides a strong positive feedback in the climate system. In current models, water vapor was found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength was shown to be consistent with that expected from a roughly constant relative humidity change in water vapor mixing ratio."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/climate-feedbacks/

Please Liberty, stop posting garbage. Try looking at real information and not someone's blog.

Posted by whateverblah at 04/09/2007 @ 4:34pm
BTW, on the religious question....

"Rio-The real God is quite upset that you hate the creation to the degree that you do."---Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 2:53pm

Odd I don't hear any of those who RIGHTFULLY go after RIO and LVLIB for claiming to "speak for God"....asking I'M NOBODY about his communications with the Great Juju?!??!?

Or is it "okay" to claim God is a "Green Party member", just not that he's a "Republican Party member"?

Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 4:43pm
Wow, the insipid, specious reasoning of local dullards LL and Riobravo never ceases to amaze and amuse. According to eminent climate scientist/ backyard meteorologist riobravo, global warming is now fallaciuos due to a cold snap in april. Someone give this man the nobel fucking prize. Such erudite reasoning is a rarity in the scientific community where people might tend to look at long term trends rather than one random event. Trends such as oh, i don't know, the ten warmest years since reliable meteorological records have been kept occuring in the past decade and a half, or the dwindling number of global warming "skeptics" in the scietific community who are now more akin to holocaust deniers than anything.

Science, by its very nature is open to ammendment, but all the best info available now points to cataclysmic results if we don't change our ways soon. There is very little disagreement among CLIMATOLOGISTS on this subject- anthropogenic global warming is occuring, and we are rapidly approaching tipping points, which if crossed will render climate change autocatalytic.

Posted by entropy at 04/09/2007 @ 4:54pm
And give the god shit a rest- i doubt anyone comes here for your keen theological insights any more than they do for your nonsensical prattling about topics you know nothing about- such as climatology.

Posted by entropy at 04/09/2007 @ 4:56pm
Mask-God wouldn't be a Green party member.Not a joiner.I don't claim to speak for God.I use common sense.If you are the creator of something then you love it when people appreciate your creation and treat it with the proper respect.What artist wants someone to destroy their artwork?If you plant a beautiful rose do you want someone to come by and destroy it?I treat God with the same respect I would treat a human creator.What's wrong with that?

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 5:03pm
Freiheit-The socialist thing makes no sense as does your claim that we're jealous of people who can afford SUVs.Do you have any clue as to the incomes of people who believe in the human cause of global warming?Of course,you don't.Most I know can afford SUVs,but don't drive them.Many Christians believe in the human cause of global warming so claiming otherwise was silly.Christians don't have a unified view of global warming.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 6:02pm
No, freheit i don't think that mankind can "win" over global warming as if it is some sort of fucking contest, and I also believe thbat declaring war on a tactic/ abstraction is utterly idiotic. In my opinion, we lack the will to make meaningful changes in the timeframe which they would be relevent- thus my references to tipping points and the process becoming autocatalytic. I do think that we may be able to ameliorate some of the more grievous effects if quick and decisive action is taken. And as for your "save the earth" quote, this has absolutely nothing to do with saving the earth. Even if the biosphere were completely decimated by human activity, the earth would catrry on just fine, and evolution of species would begin anew, eventually bringing about a new biodiversity- what this is about is saving a great deal of humanity from imense hardship, suffering and death.

Posted by entropy at 04/09/2007 @ 6:22pm
This situation to me is analogous to a cancer- many patients in early stages are asymptomatic, and these early stages offer the best chance to combat the disease with any long term efficacy. Oftentimes once severe symptoms are manifest, the cancer has metasticized and the prognosis is grim. We have an MRI showing a malignant tumor, yet we are not acting to erradicate it because what- we are not shitting blood yet?

Posted by entropy at 04/09/2007 @ 6:31pm
Rio Bravo- Do you ever grow tired of being repeatedly humiliated in this forum by more cognitively endowed hominids? On the rare occasions that you actual manage to articulate yourself in a quasi- comprehensible fashion, the end result is always the same- verbal diarrhea. Crawl back into the hole from whence you came and let the grown ups talk m'kay.

Posted by entropy at 04/09/2007 @ 6:36pm
"Posted by FREIHEIT 04/09/2007 @ 5:49pm

I am of the same opinion. ...on many of the same issue we are on the same side...we must be the mind numb robots every one here sees under their beds...

Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 7:11pm
"In fact, do you ever wonder why government is not currently doing much to resolve human hardship, suffering and death? Do you really believe climate change is going to change that inaction? " FREHEIT

Uh, because the country is run by a chimp? But seriously, where did I ever mention the government- you assume to much. For all you know the necessary changes I refer to would come from the volition of individuals rather than government oversight. I do in fact feel the gov needs to play a role, but whatever it does will be useless without the consent of the populace- we are addicted to our lifestyle, and no gov't mandate will amend that. This is real, sound sciece and our future are at stake Fre- there are not socialists hiding behind every bush. I am sure there are some individuals who wish to exploit this crisis for selfish ends, but most are not of that mentality- unfortunately, that cannot be said for the climate change deniers.

Maasch- What the holy hell is a "mind numb robot"?

Posted by entropy at 04/09/2007 @ 7:37pm
Freeheit-Are you saying that this is some kind of massive plot put together by many scientists and others?

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 7:56pm
"Just like the war on terror, and the war on poverty, "solutions" to the "crisis" of global warming is a front for wealth and power distribution. And a power grab by those who detest the idea that people are capable of thinking and acting for themselves.

Posted by FREIHEIT 04/09/2007 @ 7:18pm | ignore this person

exactly...many do not want you driving an SUV when you could be driving a Preius...and by affording an SUV to many people is the same as wasting money that could be use elsewhere by others...to sell this one first has to demonize or criminalize the activity or person, make it a national crisis and then offer a solution...take away the SUV of everybody, just to be fair...and tax those who use too much of "the peoples" energy..unless you buy carbon "indulgences"...then you can continue activity..even Whole Foods is selling card credits for ofsetting you emissions and the equivialnt ot planting 13 trees..

I am begining to believe those who said the enviroment is the new religion of the far left..to get things they want and can't get at the ballot box by being honest..complete with prophets(ALGORE), disciples(Lefty politicians) sins(carbon foot prints) bible(ALGORES MOVIE),redemtion(selling your SUV),a Savior(Scientific community)and of course,, Satan(oil companys) the collection plate (carbon taxes)...the whole model is there..

So, why not have the govt hire all the unemployeed(4.4%) to plant a billion tress?

Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 8:02pm
Maasch-You guys are sounding like kooks and loons with all your conspiracy nonsense and jealousy claims.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 8:04pm
Maasch- What the holy hell is a "mind numb robot"?

Posted by ENTROPY 04/09/2007 @ 7:

Those who get their marching orders from Limbaugh and Fox news, then go out and support anything and everything Bush, or Cheney or whom ever the leftys hate, and they then follow such beliefs without question...kinda like Franks posts only on the left...

Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 8:07pm
Freiheit, there is no need to argue that Bush 'lied' to get us into Iraq, since it's patently obvious that he merely allowed himself to be deceived. He didn't generate the dishonest interpretations of intel, people around him did, and his grip on reality is weak enough that he couldn't step up and challenge them.

Speaking of 'grip on reality', one gallon of gasoline burned in an internal combustion engine generates over one thousand gallons of carbon dioxide at standard temp and pressure. Do the stochiometry, and use the gas equation that any chemist can give you, and you'll see that's incontrovertibly true. Multiply that by the U.S.' annual consumption, and a kindergartener could explain that a whole lot of excess carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, at some point, the closed system's ability to maintain homeostasis will be challenged.

Factor in the change in ocean pH that is exclusively due to excess carbon dioxide, and is causing measurable damage to the foundation of every ecosystem on earth, the sea, and whoop-de-doo, we have a genuine bona fide recipe for disaster.

So when writers like Maasch say we still need more 'honest debate', I say, how much longer are we going to keep stalling, or will it take the entire goddamn house burning down around us until we admit there's a problem?

Posted by maddox at 04/09/2007 @ 8:55pm
Wow. Whateverblah especially but Entropy too are powerful voices for Reason's hoped for resurgence. Thanks so much. Saludos.

Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2007 @ 9:13pm
Freiheit-Believing a handful of people lied us into a war is quite different from a massive conspiracy to grab power by numerous scientists,politicians,and activists.A belief in massive conspiracies puts you in Maaschs kook and loon section.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/09/2007 @ 9:56pm
Posted by MADDOX 04/09/2007 @ 8:55pm

I actually agree with your post..my point of discussion is, what have been the effects of the increase in carbon in the closed system(the carbon amount is the same..its form is changed)to the temp...the time frame for the increase in carbon vs the time change in temp ... I don't think are long enough to get a real measure...other scientists say the carbon increase arrives after the temp increases in the past...discussion is needed..I understand the stochiometry chemistry, but not the long term truth as it hasn't been long term enough....and the models don't seem to work...

As a matter of common sense I believe it is over due that we find sometjhing else than hydrocarbons from thr ME..

Posted by john maasch at 04/09/2007 @ 10:08pm
Be sure to wear your jackets. It's cold this time of year.

Posted by woodyee at 04/09/2007 @ 11:29pm
Rio-I see that you lack facts as usual.Global warming is a natural event.Nobody is denying that.This time this natural event is being made much worse by human pollution.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/10/2007 @ 09:11am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 5:03pm

"God" supposedly created everything....so...does he "love" the Ebola virus and should we protect it as part of his Creation?

And YES you are claiming to speak for God, just as any Religious RIGHTIE does...by imposing YOUR political "common sense" onto what you think the Supreme Being wants or desires....same as LVLIB.

Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 09:38am
Mask-You are a very negative person who is obviously unhappy and must seek out ways to put everything and everybody down.You ought to check out Buddhism since you're an agnostic.It could help you become more satisfied with your life.It would,also, help you see the difference between a LvLiberty and myself.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/10/2007 @ 10:16am
Mask-I know you're upset because I was able to show that I wasn't claiming to speak for God,but was just using common sense and decency,but you shouldn't let things like that upset you so much.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/10/2007 @ 12:59pm
WASHINGTON - Climate change is heating the earth and also warming relations between Democrat John Kerry and Republican Newt Gingrich.

Kerry, a past presidential candidate, debated Gingrich, a potential one, in a friendly exchange Tuesday on Capitol Hill. . . Kerry asked what Gingrich would say to Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who calls global warming a hoax.

"My message, I think, is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere," Gingrich replied.

Posted by Lillian at 04/10/2007 @ 7:09pm
Mask-I know you're upset because I was able to show that I wasn't claiming to speak for God,but was just using common sense and decency...---Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/10/2007 @ 12:59pm

Rio-The real God is quite upset that you hate the creation to the degree that you do.----Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/09/2007 @ 2:53pm

Yep, you sure showed me....oh well....I'll get over it.....sigh....some day!

hehe

Posted by Mask at 04/11/2007 @ 09:55am
BTW, setting aside I'M NOBODY's divinely-inspired common sense....or common sensely-inspired knowledge of the desires of "God"...

Curious as to why I haven't seen any support to my "All like Al" Plan....whereby we ALL start carbon credits companies, buy off our "carbon footprint" from it, and don't have to change our lifestyles....as the former Vice-President does?

or even opposition?

Posted by Mask at 04/11/2007 @ 09:57am