Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis post, which will appear in condensed form in this week's issue of The Nation, was co-written and researched by Andrea D'Cruz
As we approach the Copenhagen UN Climate Change Conference, December 7 to 18--the world's last chance to secure an emissions reductions agreement that will replace the Kyoto Protocol before it expires--activists racing against a ticking environmental bomb are channeling their energies at the UN talks and beyond. Join them.
350 parts per million represents the maximum amount of C02 that can exist in the atmosphere with people and the planet continuing to thrive, according to scientists. Any more than that and we're screwed. At 350.org, founded by Bill McKibben, you can find out more about the science behind the number, sign up for action alerts, help plan upcoming actions, and add your name to the 350 pledge, which will be delivered at Copenhagen. This video chronicles the group's recent international day of protest.
The Yes Men, a loose-knit association of some 300 activists worldwide who impersonate corporate leaders to call attention to their misdoings, have devoted recent pranks to climate change, and have established a website, beyondtalk.net, where you can pledge to take environmental non-violent civil disobedience.
Rising Tide North America is also a good resource for direct action organizing--something everyone from scientists like James Hansen and politicians like Al Gore now see as increasingly necessary--providing speakers, trainings and workshops. The group also devotes significant energy to educating on the root causes of climate change and debunking what it argues are the fallacies behind proposed market-based solutions.
Gear up for November 30, the eve of the Copenhagen talks and the tenth anniversary of the WTO Seattle shut-down, with Mobilization for Climate Justice. Putting social justice at the center of the debate, they highlight the need for real, non-market based solutions that protect those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change: people of color, low-income, and indigenous communities--in the US and globally. They will be staging a nation-wide series of non-violent direct actions targeted at "corporate climate criminals."
To support activists on the ground in Copenhagen donate to transnational movement, Climate Justice Action and check out their website for an "Atlas of Global Resistance" and an "Action Calendar", whose key dates include December 12, a Global Day of Action.
The Energy Action Coalition is a US-based online community of young environmental organizers striving to leverage collective power and create change for clean, efficient, just and renewable energy. Its PowerShift conference has become an important annual gathering place for activists to share ideas and strategies.
The Campus Climate Challenge pushes colleges and universities to become models for the clean energy revolution. The hard results so far are impressive: 285 colleges committed to becoming climate neutral through the Presidents Climate Commitment, a set of principles put forth by a group of college and university presidents. Check out a The map of participating schools as well as resources for students to push the challenge at their own schools. The site also maintains a blog, offering dispatches from the youth climate movement.
1Sky offers concrete plans for pivoting to a clean energy economy, which has the potential to relieve US dependence on foreign oil, and usher in a new era of good, green jobs.
The Climate Crisis Coalition was founded in 2004 specifically to broaden the constituency of the climate action movement.
International long-running environmental giants Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace continue to work around the issue of global warming. Greenpeace offers a robust climate change action center; FOE's demandclimatejustice.org implores Obama to take bold action at Copenhagen, and Oxfam's Copenhagen campaign, tcktcktck.org, offers ways to get involved in demanding "an ambitious, fair and binding climate deal."
Just do something.
Share this article
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
350 parts per million represents the maximum amount of C02 that can exist in the atmosphere with people and the planet continuing to thrive, according to scientists.
This post, which will appear in condensed form in this week's issue of The Nation, was co-written and researched by by Andrea D'Cruz
Posted by Peter Rothberg on 11/18/2009 @ 12:47
An honest article would have said "according to some scientists". Far more scientists disagree with not only AGW but this truly ridiculous notion of a 350 ppm limit on CO2 composition of greenhouse gasses. Especially when anthropogenic contributions to CO2 are so miniscule.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 2:27pm
"Putting social justice at the center of the debate, they highlight the need for real, non-market based solutions that protect those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change: people of color, low-income, and indigenous communities--"
written and researched by Andrea D'Cruz
What an assinine statement.
Certain groups breath different air than the rest of the frickin world?
Why not just shoot the credibility of this article with a 12 gauge?
Posted by Benchrest at 11/18/2009 @ 2:50pm
As always with GW.....the Deniers' Most Unanswerable Question-
If even the Republican Party admits that global warming is real, man-made, and needs to be addressed....from everybody from John McCain to Newt Gingrich...
why do they matter???
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 3:00pm
BTW, somebody on the Denier side help me out...
and cite a study from somebody linked to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 3:02pm
More good news! Obama successfully killed Copenhagen!
Oops, you mean that wasn't his intent?
<How Copenhagen died during Barack Obama's Asia trip
He did it! During his trip to China, President Barack Obama mentioned human rights and the importance of free thinking, and China didn't dump its massive pile of U.S. dollars. America must still have some sway left in the world.
Perhaps Obama is now on a roll and will score a last-minute deal with China on climate change reduction targets or revaluing the Chinese yuan to get the global economic order rebalanced. Not.
Despite all this Asia trip fanfare, the truth is, America is foundering beneath Obama's sizzle. The world doubts America's ability to achieve objectives that it has set for itself -- and this includes several key goals Obama had before going on his wide cut through Northeast and Southeast Asia.
...Third was to secure support for serious, binding targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, particularly for China. Missed target -- sizzle fizzled. Fourth was to strike a deal with China and other key Asian nations to structurally re-engineer their economies to prioritize consumption over production -- and to encourage them to buy American products on the way to rebalancing the global economy. Another big fizzle.
The reaction around much of the world is that the Copenhagen climate change meeting in December will be a soft summit, not a hard one that moves beyond pretense to action.
Given expectations and Obama's own early declarations of its importance, Copenhagen is now dead. But what killed it is a fundamental error of the Obama White House: that it can be all things to all causes.>
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29626.html
Posted by antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 3:12pm
Get rid of all this touchy feely crap and hit the world with cold hard sobering facts, and we're all in it together, not just a few politically select favorite groups because it makes D'Cruz feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Frickin YUCK!
D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
Bluto: What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you're gonna let it be the worst. "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer...
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
Posted by Benchrest at 11/18/2009 @ 3:23pm
The Sky is Falling The Sky is Falling! Run and Tell the King!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/18/2009 @ 3:29pm
Mask,
1. John McCain is not a scientist.
2. John McCain is wrong to jump on a global warming bandwagon when scientists have not come to an agreement on the topic in question.
3. Because one is a Republican, they are not automatically correct about something, or many things. See Scozzafava, Dede for the most recent example of RINO behavior.
4. Yes, George W. Bush was not as Conservative as I would have liked, but on the other hand he started fighting back when war was being waged upon us, which virtually no Democrat other than Joe Lieberman would have done and even many other Republicans may not have done that either. Thus, Mr. Bush goes down in history (as written by me) as one of the best Presidents this country has ever had. Same for Tony Blair in the U.K., and he was the equivalent of a Democrat, being in the Labour party.
5. John McCain should not have been the lead candidate on the GOP ticket in 2008 anyway. There should have been an unprecidented move made, with McCain and his running mate swapping places on the GOP ticket, and then his running mate would be President now instead of us having to wait until January 20, 2013. That would have been a good idea, you betcha!
6. Yes, Mask, when I voted in 2008 I voted for John McCain. I have told you why---- I voted for the less lib of the two libs running for President, and also the more lib lib (Obama) had another lib as his running mate whereas the less lib lib (McCain) had a conservative as his running mate, the next President of the U.S.
7. I should paste these answers into Word or Word Pad and save the file, because as night follows day, as sure as the sun rises in the morning, you will bring up McCain and global warming again, undoutably many many times.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 3:47pm
CHIP THORNTON,
Tne person who wants to be King, Prince Charles, DOES think the sky is falling.....he is almost as fanatical about global warming or climate change or whatever the buzzword is as Algore is.......and I would think his Mom Queen Elizabeth is embarrased every time the Prince opens his mouth.
She is probably thinking "We have got to find a way to bypass Chuckles and get the throne to William or Harry when the time comes".
I think the thought of Charles becoming king will give Queen Elizabeth the will to live a long long time and probably outlive Charles, who sometime down the road will be as perplexed as Algore will be that the planet is still around and hasn't fried up yet.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 3:52pm
As always with GW.....the Deniers' Most Unanswerable Question- If even the Republican Party admits that global warming is real, man-made, and needs to be addressed....from everybody from John McCain to Newt Gingrich... why do they matter??? Posted by Mask at 11/18/2009 @ 3:00pm
--would you be saying this if you knew the predictions of doom by global warming alarmists wasn't true? i think you would--you're most concerned with politics.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/18/2009 @ 4:45pm
I am not sure what to believe. According to postmodern deconstructionist thinking, reality is merely a social and cultural construct. So it seems that all we need to do about AGW as a society is just "wish it away". That should be much easier than all the cap-and-tax and wealth redistribution schemes being cooked up. Or, will I be disapointed to learn that maybe there is some objective reality after all? For fun reading, google "science wars"!
Posted by sntauri at 11/18/2009 @ 4:53pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
1. John McCain is not a scientist.
All right, SJ--fair enough.
We're all jotting this one down: Be it resolved: One MUST be a scientist to offer an opinion or belief regarding GW. That should effectively exclude your sainted Sarah, Romney, Huck, Mark "Studmuffin" Sanford, and whoever else you possess in your dreamy pantheon of heroes. And if any of same EVER voice a belief or opinion on the subject, being non-scientists they undoubtably are, we'll consider it patent bullshit to be enthusiastically ignored.
Gotcha.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/18/2009 @ 5:21pm
And, yes, that tough old broad Queen Elizabeth isn't stepping down any time soon.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/18/2009 @ 5:24pm
schnellerheinz,
Algore is not a scientist.
Gotcha back.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 5:31pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 5:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
That's for sure.
What I'm not sure of, though, is whether he'll be running for POTUS again, wherein his views on GW come to the fore as a campaign issue.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/18/2009 @ 6:12pm
The right wing of this country won't believe in global warming until Miami and/or Manhattan is under water. (And even then I have no doubt that the cause will be some sort of vast liberal media conspiracy that Fox News will push as their headline for years.) The flooding of Manhattan and Miami should happen between about 2060 and 2080 or so.
And if it doesn't and I'm still alive (which would be a miracle), I will be the first to find whatever that time's version of The Nation is, and post that I was wrong!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/18/2009 @ 6:17pm
Peter: "350 parts per million represents the maximum amount of C02 that can exist in the atmosphere with people and the planet continuing to thrive, according to scientists. Any more than that and we're screwed."
Come, come, Peter.......any "scientists" that can declare the above, have negative, as in less than ZERO, credibility.
Step back a minute....and chew this over:
One must believe that at 349.9999999 ppm, people and the planet will continue to "thrive" BUT, OMG, at 350.0000000001 ppm, "we're screwed".
On another level, should anyone take stock in some `economists' who say $18.75 Trillion (or whatever definitive number greater than actual current) in national debt represents the maximum that the US can reach with people and the economy continuing to thrive, "Any more than that and we're screwed"?
Yea, yea.....lots of you Lefties believe crap like this....as he does that the earth's core is at several million degrees Celsius.
Posted by Happy at 11/18/2009 @ 9:29pm
This AGW garbage will linger on as a cancer for some time yet...it is nothing more than a way to exert control over people - a big con job. Isn't it odd that all the AGW predictions never take place. This is because no one knows enough to create models that work - yet these control freaks cannot stand to see people exercising freedom. I say Resist!
BTW, this CO2, 350 ppm upper limit is a bunch of BS. The truth is this level is quite low for optimum plant growth which is around 1000 ppm. The more plant growth, the more O2 produced. Keep in mind, 1000 ppm is .1% and 350 ppm is .035%. Also, at 250 ppm plants start having "trouble". The truth is you cannot find a correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature. It is all a guess and a political agenda.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/18/2009 @ 11:07pm
There will be some REAL climate change starting in 2010 and 2012 that will clear the air of the stench of Obamanation and the Demoncrats! Question is will America survive long enough to get rid of them?
Posted by BigPasture at 11/19/2009 @ 02:47am
You are right SJCHERMAK, John McCain is not a Scientist. But neither is Al Gore.
If Gore in his wisdom actually thinks the planet will burn up from this then he's more stupid than I gave him credit for. You think he knows what factors are out there that might appear 100 years from now, or 50? Know one knows, just like know one knew in 1901 the effect fossilized fuels would be having in 2001. They cheered the advent of the car then because it would mean the elimination of methane in the air from horse droppings. They thought they knew.
Gore knows nothing, and any idiot who thimks he has such a handle on things that he "knows" what will happen 100 or even 20 years ago has no business in any position of responsibility.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/19/2009 @ 08:31am
If Gore in his wisdom actually thinks the planet will burn up from this then he's more stupid than I gave him credit for. You think he knows what factors are out there that might --posted by chip thornton
--lots of christians in this country, many of whom are republicans/conservatives--believe in this thing called the bible, and its predictions of armageddon.
of course, when I make fun of it, you christians pitch a fit!
you've got a lot more in common with al gore than you realize!
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 08:38am
Posted by sjchermak at 11/18/2009 @ 3:47pm
SJ...I didn't say anything about John McCain or George W. Bush.
What is the REPUBLICAN PARTY's position on the reality of Global Warming?
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 08:57am
URMYGYRO,
I'm not aware of ever ridiculing your idea of the end. I merely don't think Al-Baby has a clue about how it will happen.
Your right though: I may have something in common with him. My sister the geneologist tells me we have relatives in the Tennessee brance of the Gore family and I may actually be related to him.
Ahhhhhhhhh!
STERILIZE!! STERILIZE!!
:)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/19/2009 @ 09:03am
URMYGYRO, I'm not aware of ever ridiculing your idea of the end.
--my idea of the end? oh, I see, you're presuming I'm a believer in global warming. I'm not. But neither am I a denier. I'm agnostic, just like with religion.
I merely don't think Al-Baby has a clue about how it will happen.
--neither do the bible thumpers!
Your right though: I may have something in common with him. My sister the geneologist tells me we have relatives in the Tennessee brance of the Gore family and I may actually be related to him. Ahhhhhhhhh! STERILIZE!! STERILIZE!! :)
--if you haven't had kids yet, step up and be the first!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/19/2009 @ 09:03am |
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 09:35am
as i posted yesterday: those who have interests which run against the grain of GW 'consensus' (and those who have no idea but want to believe they are always correct) really only have 3 options:
1. not happening (see: CHIP THORNTON at 11/18/2009 @ 3:29pm)
2. happening, not human (see: antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 2:27pm)
3. happening, human, but okay (maybe even positive. see: pyeatte at 11/18/2009 @ 11:07pm)
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/19/2009 @ 09:55am
BTW, I will correct myself, because I know SJCHER will and use it as an excuse to not answer my question....I DID mention McCain, as well as Newt Gingrich and "everybody in between."
But the point remains, the GOP has not (nor will not) formally endorse the Deniers' position, in fact given no announced changes from their 2008 platform....they openly disagree with the Deniers.
And the Deniers can't deny that.
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 10:13am
But the point remains, the GOP has not (nor will not) formally endorse the Deniers' position, in fact given no announced changes from their 2008 platform....they openly disagree with the Deniers. And the Deniers can't deny that. Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 10:13am | ignore this person |
--you can't deny that your repetition of this "point" is playyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeed.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 10:19am
BLAIRWOLFF:
I'm not certain how you arrived at the conclusion that I don't believe that GW is happening. What I think is crazy is:
Our paranoid reaction to it.
Our penchant for believing we are responsible for all of it.
Our know-it-all and self flagellating nature that cause (1) and (2) above.
It's happening, no doubt. and we;ll survive. We always do. Question is, will we drive ourselves back to stone knives and bearskins doing it.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/19/2009 @ 10:22am
Question is, will we drive ourselves back to stone knives and bearskins doing it. Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/19/2009 @ 10:22am | ignore this person | warn this person
--answering what you believe to be hyperbole, with hyperbole, is too funny!
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 10:37am
Ohhhh-Kayyyyyyy
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/19/2009 @ 10:41am
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/19/2009 @ 09:55am:
I never said GW was happening...in fact it is cooling. Climate change has always happened without human activity. It will continue with human activity. My assertion is it is a natural phenomena.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/19/2009 @ 11:31am
I'm not certain how you arrived at the conclusion that I don't believe that GW is happening Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/19/2009 @ 10:22am | ignore this person | warn this person
sorry if i misrepresented your position. I just thought that if "the sky is falling" is your take on GW and obviously the sky is not falling, then obviously there is no GW. But i admit i was looking for examples of what i take to be the 3 responses to GW by those we may call 'deniers'.
pyeatte, i think i'll stick with my assertion that your comments represent the "happening, human, good". But myabe it's my own fault for making the categories too narrow. Revised: "happening (or not), human (or not), but good anyway so drill baby drill!"
is this not sorta what is behind these comments?:
"The truth is this level is quite low for optimum plant growth which is around 1000 ppm. The more plant growth, the more O2 produced. Keep in mind, 1000 ppm is .1% and 350 ppm is .035%. Also, at 250 ppm plants start having "trouble". "
pyeatte at 11/18/2009 @ 11:07pm
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/19/2009 @ 12:55pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 10:19am
But it's THE most vital question, urmy.
If the Deniers have "facts", "evidence" and "700 scientists on their side".....why isn't the Republican Party openly declaring, as part of their party platform at the LEAST that Global Warming/Climate Change IS NOT man-made...if not an out-and-out hoax?
The only possible answer, even from guys like Sjcher, would be "The public would reject them and they'd lose big time." (naturally, they'd blame the "Liberal Media for 'brainwashing' the public"...but the same underlying rationale).
But the question remains, if the Deniers are the "real majority"....why does the GOP not openly endorse their position????
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 2:00pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 10:19am But it's THE most vital question, urmy. If the Deniers have "facts", "evidence" and "700 scientists on their side".....why isn't the Republican Party openly declaring, as part of their party platform at the LEAST that Global Warming/Climate Change IS NOT man-made...if not an out-and-out hoax?
--the same reason you cite a young reagan railing against medicare as socialism but later, when president, not doing anything to eliminate it, and present day republicans/conservatives talking about "shoring it up"--it's about political expediency. the democrats act the same with gay marriage. both parties sacrifice principle for votes.
The only possible answer, even from guys like Sjcher, would be "The public would reject them and they'd lose big time."
--votes, votes, votes. the republican party has chosen not to make this an issue that defeats them, even if they believe they're right about it. democrats do the same with gay marriage.
(naturally, they'd blame the "Liberal Media for 'brainwashing' the public"...but the same underlying rationale).
--just as lame as them mask. enough with this nonsense.
But the question remains, if the Deniers are the "real majority"....why does the GOP not openly endorse their position????
--you're subtly changing the issue. the people i see here claiming global warming isn't real, or isn't dangerous, or isn't whatever...don't usually argue from a "we're right 'cause we're in the majority" position. and the fact remains--global warming is a theory. it could be proven wrong in 50 years--you, me, or anyone else doesn't know.
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person |
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 2:12pm
it could be proven wrong in 50 years--you, me, or anyone else doesn't know.
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 2:00pm
But MASK does know, he's a Lib....and they are never wrong! 350 ppm is the point of catastrophe, you betcha!
Posted by Happy at 11/19/2009 @ 3:08pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 2:12pm
urmy, slipping back into "Must disagree with Mask, even if I'm agreeing with him" mode?
Of COURSE it's political expediency...the expediency of carefully distancing yourself from an unpopular issue.
My point entirely. The Deniers are not a majority viewpoint...yet ACT as if they were. If you doubt that...ask them. They won't answer because it is embarassing, same as my original question.
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 3:39pm
Posted by Happy at 11/19/2009 @ 3:08pm
Happy, one reason, unlike others, I DON'T think Rush Limbaugh is the "de facto head of the Republican Party".....Rush tells you guys "it's a hoax".
The GOP won't touch that idea with a 30 foot pole.
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 3:41pm
urmy, slipping back into "Must disagree with Mask, even if I'm agreeing with him" mode?
--no, I mustn't disagree with you. but I disagree with your constant harping on political expediency in the republican party and by conservatives. democrats and liberals are just as guilty.
Of COURSE it's political expediency...the expediency of carefully distancing yourself from an unpopular issue.
--like dems do with fags.
My point entirely. The Deniers are not a majority viewpoint...yet ACT as if they were.
--gay marriage is far from a majority viewpoint. but that doesn't mean i think those against it are right.
If you doubt that...ask them. They won't answer because it is embarassing, same as my original question.
--you're still focused on it as if it's a popularity contest. Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person |
Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2009 @ 3:53pm
"..the world's last chance to secure an emissions reductions agreement that will replace the Kyoto Protocol before it expires--activists racing against a ticking environmental bomb are channeling their energies at the UN talks and beyond. Join them."
I think the crisi meeting has been postponed. No one is real yet...
Think the planet will survive?
Oh-oh boys,
Stagnating Temperatures
Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out By Gerald Traufetter
...Bad news.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/19/2009 @ 6:26pm
Mask,
You ask me:
"......What is the REPUBLICAN PARTY's position on the reality of Global Warming?........."
Since scientists have not come to an agreement or consensus that global warming is a reality, then you are asking a null question. Nobody has proven there is a "reality of Global Warming", thus your whole question is voided out...It is as if your question does not even exist.
However, I know what you are getting at. Therefore, if you were to have asked:
"......What is the REPUBLICAN PARTY's position on Global Warming?........."
My answer is:
1. I don't know.
2. I don't care.
3. I am not going to bother looking it up.
MY position is, the jury is out, it is not a proven concept, we need to let the scientists decide. That has not happened.
When you say Global Warming, you really mean Global Warming caused by man made reasons, because in the Earth's history the climate has fluctuated due to non man made reasons.
In the 70's the worry was we were going into an ice age. Then people said the earth was warming. It seems the latest trend is that it is cooling again. Has anybody proven this is due to man made reasons. No.
What I see are several alarm bells which call into question the hysteria by the left on this subject:
1. Why does the media not mention that there is a controversy about this? The media treats global warming as a given. Unless one is in the scientific world or gets involved in political forums such as this, the fact that some scientists question the hysteria would not be known.
2. Why do those on the political left, or scientists who contend "global warming" or climate change or whatever is man made, declare this subject closed and tell what you call the "deniers" to shut up?
to be continued
Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2009 @ 6:26pm
3. Why do so many on the political left, who can't possibly have taken the time to educate themselves enough about climatology to determine whether the conclusions of scientists who promote the global warming are scientifically valid, jump on the bandwagon anyway?
4. Why do so many of the "remedies" to "stop" the global warming match things the political left tends to promote anyway? (regulation of people's lives, scaling back growth and development of business and industry, rules of what people can and can not do, etc.)
5. Why did that judge in the United Kingdom rule that if a school shows Algore's film to the students the school MUST TELL THE STUDENTS about the 9 things WRONG about what Algore said?
With regard to my question 3, you will come back and say the political right does the same thing the opposite way. But my question 4 gives the answer to that.....people on the political right, such as me, see the left as rushing gung-ho into changing and regulating our lives for things that have not been proven, applying government control over our lives for what may be no valid reason at all. That is the reason for the opposition by the political Right, for the most part......as much as the science involved......
You can't claim that I did not answer your question, but you are dependable and I can count on you to claim I did not answer your question anyway!!!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2009 @ 6:34pm
The GOP does not support Cap-n-Trade, duh. The reason is it would wreck the economy and severely limit freedoms, all based on a non-logical theory for which there is no evidence. AGW completely violates the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing and analysis. Until that is rectified, this is a wild guess. It is up to the AGW crowd to prove their position before condemning the world to hell.
Climate change is happening all the time. It is impossible to say what the ideal climate is although it is clearly safe to say an ice age is not desirable nor is a world wide "Noah" flood, both of which may occur again as they have in the past but, as in the past, they will not be caused by humans. As long as it is far in the future, we will have plenty of time to deal with it since technology will most likely allow us to control it if we are still here. Scotty, beam me up!
Posted by pyeatte at 11/19/2009 @ 10:36pm
"s i posted yesterday: those who have interests which run against the grain of GW 'consensus' (and those who have no idea but want to believe they are always correct) really only have 3 options: 1. not happening (see: CHIP THORNTON at 11/18/2009 @ 3:29pm) 2. happening, not human (see: antisocialist at 11/18/2009 @ 2:27pm) 3. happening, human, but okay (maybe even positive. see: pyeatte at 11/18/2009 @ 11:07pm)" Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/19/2009 @ 09:55am
You forgot the fourth option: GW was happening last year:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
Remove the spaces, so I don't have to go to tinyurl.
Posted by twillie at 11/19/2009 @ 10:51pm
The problem of climate change is real.The World must tackle this at the earliest. The developed countries have more responsibilities than the poor countries and they have to lead. Waging war against the climate is easier than wars against other countries.
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/20/2009 @ 12:33am
As usual, when trying to figure out a solution to a problem, the Congess acts with lightning speed.... to add more taxes.
The "Cap and Trade" Scheme being pushed by Obama and certain parties will be one of, if not THE largest tax increase in American history.
Obama wasn't joking when he stated that his plan would make electrical rates 'skyrocket."
Is that the end game? Make heating and cooling our homes so expensive we turn off the furnace and AC?
Toss in the added costs to that phony POS health care bill that will be dumped on our backs and it's " Welcome to the 3rd World, America!"
Posted by Greg Bacon at 11/20/2009 @ 05:02am
SJCHER, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing of the EIB Talking Points on Global Warming by boiling down the Denier position to just one part of your post-
"My answer is:
1. I don't know.
2. I don't care.
3. I am not going to bother looking it up. ----Posted by sjchermak at 11/19/2009 @ 6:26pm
Perfectly sums up your way of thinking.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 07:45am
BTW, as noted several times here, Blair Woof was entirely correct in the Right's "cascading talking points" on GW-
1. "It's not real"
2. "It's real but not man-made!"
Only one we're missing is....3. "Okay, it's real and man-made, but a warmer Earth is a good thing!"
Soon as the Maldive Islands disappear...we'll get more of #2 and #3.
BTW, twillie? Here's another Der Spiegel article for you.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,341669,00.html
Soon as Limbaugh buys a retirement home in the Maldives...we'll believe it's "a hoax by enviro-nutjobs".
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 07:50am
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 07:50am
Good article. But, it's speculating what MAY happen 100 years in the future IF the MOST extreme sea level rise happens. And, its even got that wrong. The Maldives would still be above water with a sea level rise of 35 inches.
Oh, and the Maldives would be better off trying to convince the Chinese to change their ways, as they are the biggest producer of CO2 in the world, and are increasing their output at a much higher rate than the US. How about this? When the Maldives gets China to reduce its CO2 output, then they can come to us.
Finally, your article speculates on what MIGHT happen in 100 years. My article states what is happening today. There's a difference. But, hey, mask, I'm not questioning your faith. You are free to believe what you want in this country. You know, freedom of religion. Hehe.
Posted by twillie at 11/20/2009 @ 08:14am
Mask,
Your 11/20/2009 7:45 am post is Classic Mask........you at your "best"...
I did pose some food for thought questions, it would be interesting to see you or another leftie respond to them......
Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2009 @ 11:49am
Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2009 @ 11:49am
You're avoiding the question....what else do we need to know and why waste time on another round of "700 scientists say it's not happening" "Rush says it's a hoax...so I don't know, I don't care, and I'm not looking up what sane Republicans think about it"????
The fact is...The Republican Party will NOT link itself to GW Denierism...only slightly less so than it would link itself to Birtherism or the militia movement.
Take your votes?...sure. But keep them in the attic like in the crazy old aunt stories.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 1:20pm
Mask:
You imply I said:
"........"700 scientists say it's not happening" "Rush says it's a hoax...so I don't know, I don't care, and I'm not looking up what sane Republicans think about it"???? ...."
I actually said:
"..My answer is:
1. I don't know.
2. I don't care.
3. I am not going to bother looking it up.
MY position is, the jury is out, it is not a proven concept, we need to let the scientists decide. That has not happened.
When you say Global Warming, you really mean Global Warming caused by man made reasons, because in the Earth's history the climate has fluctuated due to non man made reasons.
In the 70's the worry was we were going into an ice age. Then people said the earth was warming. It seems the latest trend is that it is cooling again. Has anybody proven this is due to man made reasons. No.
What I see are several alarm bells which call into question the hysteria by the left on this subject:
1. Why does the media not mention that there is a controversy about this? The media treats global warming as a given. Unless one is in the scientific world or gets involved in political forums such as this, the fact that some scientists question the hysteria would not be known.
2. Why do those on the political left, or scientists who contend "global warming" or climate change or whatever is man made, declare this subject closed and tell what you call the "deniers" to shut up? ......."
Because of the word limit, I will continue what I actually said in a 2nd post.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2009 @ 1:28pm
Mask,
What I actually said, continued:
".......3. Why do so many on the political left, who can't possibly have taken the time to educate themselves enough about climatology to determine whether the conclusions of scientists who promote the global warming are scientifically valid, jump on the bandwagon anyway?
4. Why do so many of the "remedies" to "stop" the global warming match things the political left tends to promote anyway? (regulation of people's lives, scaling back growth and development of business and industry, rules of what people can and can not do, etc.)
5. Why did that judge in the United Kingdom rule that if a school shows Algore's film to the students the school MUST TELL THE STUDENTS about the 9 things WRONG about what Algore said?
With regard to my question 3, you will come back and say the political right does the same thing the opposite way. But my question 4 gives the answer to that.....people on the political right, such as me, see the left as rushing gung-ho into changing and regulating our lives for things that have not been proven, applying government control over our lives for what may be no valid reason at all. That is the reason for the opposition by the political Right, for the most part......as much as the science involved...... .........."
There seems to be a disconnect between what you imply I said and what I actually said!!!
Your comments are hilarious, Mask, but you probably ought to stick to distorting people's comments from previous threads rather than a given current one, because if you distort a comment on a current thread, people can just scroll upward and see immediately the distortion!!!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2009 @ 1:32pm
One more thing, Mask:
I have a favor to ask you.
Up above, you finished with:
".......Take your votes?...sure. But keep them in the attic like in the crazy old aunt stories......"
I have to admit, I have no idea what you are getting at with that. I know better than to ask you this because God knows what will come back, but could you explain what your point is?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/20/2009 @ 1:36pm
SJ, I'm more convinced on Global Warming Denial...even more than on abortion...the Republican Party is happy to have your votes...as long as you keep quiet and don't raise too much of a stink outside of blogs and AM radio.
See, on abortion, they'll actually put IN THEIR PLATFORM, support of a "Human Life Amendment" that would Constitutionally over-turn Roe and ban abortion. Not that they'd EVER pass it out of Congress with even beyond 2002 majorities....because they know the public doesn't want it.
And they'll even say "We want to end the scourge of abortion"...a not-that-vague statemetn of support for banning it.
But they will never...ever....EVER openly declare that the Republican Party believes that "Global warming is a hoax"....likely never even say "It's happening, but it's not man-made at all, so we don't need to fix it."
As noted, they'll play games with the "pro-lifers"...talk the talk, if never walking the walk, except a few crumbs from the table like "partial birth abortion" bans and "parental notification."
But they'll treat you GW Deniers...like Orly Taitz and the Birthers!
And you'll take it...and be grateful, like a homeless pup getting a bowl of milk but no doghouse.
Posted by Mask at 11/20/2009 @ 3:29pm
Looks like the whole AGW is about to blow up.....some hacker hacked into a database with lots of damning emails......evidence of collusion!
It seems we have a bunch of modern witch doctors whose `spell' is losing its potency.
MASK is permanently spell-bound, of course!
Posted by Happy at 11/20/2009 @ 4:24pm
twillie,
for me its not so muh the direction of a thermometer (especially in 1 year).
the 'climate issue' is about a species that can't not poop all over its house.
water resources, garbage, plastic gyres, dead zones, deforestation, industrial farming, on and on.
I'll see your link, and call. remember when this was going to ruin the economy?
http://tinyurl.com/ybetsru
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/20/2009 @ 4:55pm
My point entirely. The Deniers are not a majority viewpoint...yet ACT as if they were.
Posted by Mask at 11/19/2009 @ 3:3
good book 'bout that right now:
http://www.dmpibooks.com/book/climate-cover-up
Shall i gove away the plot?
Denier science is thin, rare, bought and paid for.
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/20/2009 @ 5:06pm
give
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/20/2009 @ 5:07pm
"good book 'bout that right now: http://www.dmpibooks.com/book/climate-cover-up Shall i gove away the plot? Denier science is thin, rare, bought and paid for." Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/20/2009 @ 5:06pm
Interesting. Which cover-up will emerge victorious? The oil/coal funded one, or the Hadley-CRU one? (Which assures continual renewal of science grants).
"for me its not so muh the direction of a thermometer (especially in 1 year). the 'climate issue' is about a species that can't not poop all over its house. water resources, garbage, plastic gyres, dead zones, deforestation, industrial farming, on and on. I'll see your link, and call. remember when this was going to ruin the economy? http://tinyurl.com/ybetsru" Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/20/2009 @ 4:55pm
How about the direction of the thermometer for ten years?
so, for you, it's not so much about whether AGW (oops, I mean global "climate change") exists, it's whether it can be used by environmentalists like you as a hammer for the social changes that YOU deem important.
Posted by twillie at 11/20/2009 @ 10:51pm
so, for you, it's not so much about whether AGW (oops, I mean global "climate change") exists, it's whether it can be used by environmentalists like you as a hammer for the social changes that YOU deem important.
Posted by twillie at 11/20/2009 @ 10:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The existence of climate change is not controversial to me. From your previous comments i think we agree that there is no such thing as a static climate.
The question humans ( the 'A' in your AGW) must face is what kind of a world do we want, since it's obvious that the >7,000,000,000 of us can and do shape this rock.
So, yep, to the extent i care, i use this issue and many othes to hammer for the changes i want. I am a political creature.
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/21/2009 @ 08:19am
Which cover-up will emerge victorious? The oil/coal funded one, or the Hadley-CRU one? (Which assures continual renewal of science grants).
Posted by twillie at 11/20/2009 @ 10:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is a good point. Both 'sides' have interests and should share our distrust. But from modern science has emerged ways to figure out which side is most honest. Peer reviewed work, for one example, is better than non. Not always and not absolutely but generally.
So what is the current count?
Guy named Jim Prall has compiled a database of published climate scientists:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/
One output of this database: of 615 scientists who have published more than a hundred peer-reviewed papers on climate change, the skeptics are outnumbered 601 to 14.
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/21/2009 @ 08:35am
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/21/2009 @ 08:19am: As you say, long term climate is always changing. The main reason I do not believe in AGW is simply because there is no actual evidence -just political agenda and pressure. The just-hacked database shows just how corrupt this movement is (I downloaded the whole thing). The worst thing about this is how compromised the study and funding of science is - who will believe them when the next crisis visits us. The whole subject can be boiled down to the suppression of individual freedom and national sovereignty.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/21/2009 @ 5:09pm
Nothing better exemplifies sjchermak's ignorant fatuity than this sentence "In the 70's the worry was we were going into an ice age. "
That is utter nonsense. In 1975, Newsweek ran an article making that claim. It overemphasized a paper that argued that an ice age COULD be triggered if aerosol levels several times over on a sustained basis, that there could be global cooling. That was one scientific report and, in fact, there was NOT a trend in the scientific journals predicting an ice age. The National Academy of Sciences report of that year took the position that climate change wasn't yet within their capacity to extrapolate.
Since then, the scientific organization backing the idea of AGW include-- # National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration # Environmental Protection Agency # NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies # American Geophysical Union # American Institute of Physics # National Center for Atmospheric Research # American Meteorological Society # The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) draws upon the work of over 850 peer reviewed studies
Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 12:22am
Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 12:22am:
And now we find the CRU engaged in massive fraud, faking and manipulating temperature measurements to hide cooling, so as to push a political agenda. My favorite spin is on RealClimate dot org "Posting private correspondence without permission is unethical". Last time we heard this excuse was from ACORN. This should put a stake through the heart of the AGW Dracula and probably ruin a few science careers. In the end, they just couldn't help themselves. The ends justified the means.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/22/2009 @ 12:58am
pyeatte, the emails refer to common methods such as adding estimated data for missing observations and adjusting unusual observations with more normative ones.
This is a tempest in a teapot.
Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 01:22am
Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 01:22am:
This is a tempest in a teapot? Only if cooking the data is ok. Odd, isn't it, how FOIA requests for the raw data were denied to scientists who wanted to study said data. This so-called "tempest in a teapot" is going to turn into a hurricane. I assume you think the "hockey stick" was legit when the Medieval Warming was "adjusted out" so as to give the impression it never occurred. The e-mails show this was a deliberate case of fraud - people have gone to jail for less.
This is not the first time something like this has happened in other fields. I can recall a few times where scientists who have been so committed to finding a cure for some disease have falsified test data in order to continue to get funding.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/22/2009 @ 10:18am
The point is that they didn't cook the data. Second, FOIA requests from a British university have no validity, so that statement is a non-sequitur.
The emails show nothing except that they were experimenting with different data inputs. There is no evidence of fraud.
The fact that AGW-denialists have to resort to cherry-picked email shows how weak their case is.
Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 12:51pm
Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 12:51pm
Why not some honesty and just admit, to folks like you, AGW is a religion?
Posted by Happy at 11/22/2009 @ 2:27pm
Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 12:51pm:
An awful lot of cherry-picked e-mails that clearly indicate cooking the data... Also there has been a refusal to reveal raw data for others to study that goes back several years. When this happens in non-classified research it's usually because someone has something to hide. Now we know what they were hiding - the truth. Funny thing about religion - it is based on faith - thus is AGW.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/22/2009 @ 3:23pm
Obama has killed any prospects for a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. The administration came into the talks leading up to the conference and proceeded to dump a list of demands on developing countries that couldn't possibly be accepted. This is change, Obama-style. Make a speech that leaves everyone fawning, claim to be in favor of a real solution, but when the time comes to step up to the plate, don't do anything, just sell out.
Posted by nkurland at 11/22/2009 @ 3:49pm
This is change, Obama-style...... when the time comes to step up to the plate, don't do anything, just sell out.
Posted by nkurland at 11/22/2009 @ 3:49pm
Good! You see that is factually, Change!
Most elected to the Presidency for the first term, really do try to live up to their key campaign promises....but give credit where it's due, Magic did not try, starting Day 1 with the Pork Bill and Gitmo's closing!
He is The One you've been waiting for, refreshing Change.
Posted by Happy at 11/22/2009 @ 4:01pm
Posted by Happy at 11/22/2009 @ 4:01pm
I'm not going to be so trite as to say that he didn't try. I do think that on a personal level Obama wanted change, at least in the limited terms he defined it. Let's face it, he's yet another president that's a product of a broken political system. Just like Dubya, Clinton and Reagan he owes whatever popularity he has to his personality. The Obama phenomenon was simply a good advertising campaign, nothing more.
Posted by nkurland at 11/22/2009 @ 4:25pm
I'm not going to be so trite as to say that he didn't try. I do think that on a personal level Obama wanted change,....
Posted by nkurland at 11/22/2009 @ 4:25pm
If he tried like a President CAN, then I am Santa Claus!
Posted by Happy at 11/22/2009 @ 4:44pm
Well, basically we owe nothing to developing nations, especially as it relates to the AGW scam via the UN. I believe the latest theft attempt is the so called "climate debt", one of the most ridiculous frauds ever contemplated. You could not make this stuff up unless you are a third-world UN dictator trying to rip-off the rest of us. Perhaps it is time to move that retched organization out of our country - maybe North Korea. Let the esteemed ambassadors try the nightlife there.
The developing world must cleanup its own act, which is mostly political. They are the ones that must 'change', not us, if they want our help.
Posted by pyeatte at 11/22/2009 @ 7:03pm
"An awful lot of cherry-picked e-mails that clearly indicate cooking the data."
They reveal nothing of the kind. Incidentally, a "religion" generally doesn't rely on an scientific consensus, or do you cherry-picked emails from all the other organizations I mentioned.
Posted by brunowe at 11/22/2009 @ 10:58pm
Posted by Happy at 11/20/2009 @ 4:24pm
It's the simplest question in the world, Happy....but one that you and your mentor Mr. Limbaugh can't seem to answer...
if there is "no such thing" as Global Warming....why doesn't YOUR political party, the GOP....say so????
Posted by Mask at 11/23/2009 @ 07:28am
Well, basically we owe nothing to developing nations, especially as it relates to the AGW scam via the UN. I believe the latest theft attempt is the so called "climate debt", one of the most ridiculous frauds ever contemplated
Posted by pyeatte at 11/22/2009 @ 7:03pm
EVER?
How about this little fraud:
we go to africa. we beat and steal people. we bring them to america. we build a nation on their backs. we make it legal.
Posted by Blair Wooff at 11/23/2009 @ 08:20am