Yes, it is more climahystericy. You know it won’t go away any time soon. Like defeat and retreat, forced health care and checkups for everyone, and soaking the rich-plus crying, whining, and personal attacks when the supporters are asked to debate it-climahystericy is here to stay. Just ask Bill McKibben at the Washington Post
It’s the oldest and most cliched of metaphors, but when it comes to global warming, it’s the only one that really works: We’re in a desperate race. Politics is chasing reality, and the gap between them isn’t closing nearly fast enough.
Consider the news from the real world, the one where change is measured with satellites and thermometers, not focus groups: Arctic ice is melting on an unbelievable scale — an area the size of Britain disappeared each week in late summer as the record for minimum ice cover, set in 2005, was shattered by more than 400,000 square miles, meaning about a 27 percent loss. Forget the Petraeus report — what historians will note about September 2007 is that the Northwest Passage was free of ice for the first time since humans started keeping track.
Well, Bill is right in one regard; hysterical politicians are chasing reality, but the finish line for the two are different. Reality is that Man has a small effect on global warming. Reality is that it has happened naturally many times before, as has cooling, and will happen again.
The panel’s chair, Rajendra Pachauri, offered the planet an absolute deadline: We need to be producing less carbon dioxide — which is to say burning less coal, gas and oil — by 2015 at the latest, and after that we would need "very sharp reductions" or else there is no hope of avoiding an eventual temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius and the accompanying prospect of catastrophe.
Funny how that has happened in the past, including during the time of Man, and we, and the planet, are still here.
It will take a movement to force that kind of change — a movement as urgent, and one to which people are as morally committed and willing to sacrifice, as the civil rights movement was a generation ago. Last spring, I worked with six college students to put together StepItUp07.org. In the course of 12 weeks, with almost no money, we helped put together 1,400 rallies in all 50 states demanding action.
I have to wonder how much carbon and trash those demonstration produced? And what they accomplished, other then making people feel good? Perhaps if they got their buts in gear and instead planted some trees, picked up trash, and other environmental type stuff, they would make a difference, rather then just "feeling good."
Through all the hysteria and the "we need to do somethings"-like pass bills that jack the taxes up big time and have all sorts of demonstrations-the climahysterics miss that there is virtually nothing we can do about natural processes-these people shift the focus from a worthy cause like saving the environment, or at least conservation, in favor of plain silliness. Said silliness is being pushed by two kinds of people-those who are truly socialists/communists and want to do away with capitalism, and those who are looking to get some fame and fortune. Both types have gotten people, mostly liberals, to buy into the whole carbon neutral idiocy.
After 20 years of inaction the race is finally underway. Global warming has a huge head start; the sprint to catch up is the story of our time.
Clinton did what? Wasn’t he president for almost half that time? Anyhow, don’t you just love how the climahysterics keep changing the time period?
Do you have an interesting post? Well, go ahead and leave a trackback, with a reciprical link back to me. Otherwise, no snowcone for you!
Please define “small” as in man has a small efect on global warming.
Of course there are other factors that are contributing to global climate change. However we should still try to reduce our own impact on global climate change.
I don’t think that global climate change is “funny” billions of people will have to deal with it that is why even the Pentagon said that Global Cimate change had national security implications
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=26231
I for one do not wish to see masive migration from the south to the north.
Teach, what is your evidence that “natural earth processes” are contributing to climate change? The IPCC has measured and provided numeric values (called radiative forcing) to all the factors that alter the energy balance of the Earth (including the sun and other natural factors). Can you site a different report that gives different values? You never answer this question – which is telling in itself.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
It’s interesting that you accept the scientific evidence that man is influencing the climate via agriculture (increasing methane and nitrous oxide) but reject that the burning of fossil fuels (increasing CO2) has anything to do with it .
Man’s contribution is so small as to be laughable ( .28% ). The Kilauea volcanoe produces earth day the same amount of sulfur dioxide as all the auto in the US combined ( 2500 tons ) and their are 120+ active volcanoes.
Here are some facts:
Without a “Greenhouse effect” we would have temperature swings of 150 degrees each day. So the Greenhouse effect is why we are able to inhabit our Earth.
Without CO2 all plants would die.
If you want to learn more try JunkScience or this link http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
NortonPete, this is from the USGS Volcano Hazards program:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Regarding water vapor…yes it is an important greenhouse gas but it is feedback and not a forcing. There is an excellent discussion about it here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
I looked at the site you posted. Much of the information is old (some of it very old). There was only one source from 2006 and that was just another website. In my opinion it’s best to read scientific studies found in peer reviewed journals or sites that us peer reviewed studies as sources.
Silky:
.)
The emissions from Volcanoes regarded Sulfur Dioxide not harmless CO2. Sulfur Dioxide is a dangerous gas, CO2 is the by product of converting corn to ethanol. Somebody is stuck on stupid here, ( my poor grammar might implicate me
As far as the link. Dude! the atmosphere’s makeup has not changed in many years, learn some science , take a real college level science course, not a political science course.
Don’t breath so hard you are expelling a lot of CO2 and don’t drink, as fermentation produces large amounts of CO2 thankfully ( the plants love it ).
NortonPete said: The emissions from Volcanoes regarded Sulfur Dioxide not harmless CO2.
Sorry, I assumed you were talking about CO2. I’m not sure why you brought up Sulfur Dioxide. Even the source you site yourself does not identify it as a major greenhouse gas (just CO2, CH4, N2O). In fact it never even mentions it.
NortonPete said: Dude! the atmosphere’s makeup has not changed in many years, learn some science,
Here’s what scientists are saying about the atmosphere’s makeup:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
No one is disputing the fact that the plants love CO2 or that the greenhouse effect helps regulate Earth’s temperature. The problem is when man alters the natural balance by the burning of fossil fuels.
I’m still hoping Teach will provide his scientific sources on what “natural processes” are responsible for the current warming trend.
There are several articles out there this week that the Chinese put out about that they have found 24 new ice bergs more than last year and that the Northwest Passage is frozen solid at this time. They are worried that if the freezing continues it might harm their water supply.
Most of the reasons for more ice bergs increasing is that they are growing and when they reach a certain weight that can’t be supported they will break in to. Causing more of them. So I can only suggest to Silke that he/she go out there and read the articles.
I know that I am not an expert in these things but since the South Pole has been freezing because it’s winter there and the North Pole has been melting as it is summer there. I have always just referred to it as Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall. I think in the olden days it was referred to as the changing of seasons. I think I’ll just stick to that idea. I know it has also been know as cycles in 20 or 30 years time spans. Since it has been going on since time began like I said I’ll stick to those facts instead of some loon with absolutly no back ground or education to keep running around screaming the “the sky is falling”.
irtexas, I would be very interested in reading the articles you mention. Perhaps you could send a link. I did several Google searches but could not find those specific articles.
irtexas said: the Northwest Passage is frozen solid at this time
This is what the European Space Agency reported one month ago:
irtexas said: Since it has been going on since time began like I said I’ll stick to those facts instead of some loon with absolutly no back ground or education to keep running around screaming the “the sky is falling”.
I agree it’s important to stick to the facts. Here is what scientists are saying…
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMYTC13J6F_index_0.html
Silke,
It came from the DC edition of the Examiner. It was on the right sidebar where they put the little blue news bits.