Some scientists who helped produce the latest report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have said that the science was watered down to appease government representatives involved in approving the final draft of the report.
Even in its softened version, Friday’s report forecasts scenarios over the coming decades that many find unthinkable: three billion people without adequate water supply, agriculture and forests decimated around the globe, melted glaciers and ice sheets, one-third of the world’s species driven to extinction and major global regions ravaged by floods, violent storms and storm surges. The report also forecasts an unprecedented environmental refugee crisis as major populations get displaced.
The report confirmed that the hardest-hit nations will be poor developing countries who lack the resources to adapt to climate change, not the industrialized economies who have produced the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions that led to the crisis. Poor regions within wealthy countries may also be left more vulnerable to climate change. The future of New Orleans, which was nearly destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, may well depend upon federal assistance to construct Category 5 levees and restore the marshlands along Louisiana’s southern coastline.
Owing to the gravity of the findings, and the urgent need for governments to take action, some scientists have found the political mitigation unacceptable.
“The science got hijacked by the political bureaucrats at the late stage of the game,” said John Walsh, professor of climate change and chief scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ InternationalArcticResearchCenter, who co-authored the report’s chapter on polar regions and vowed never to help produce another IPCC report.
The IPCC reports are consensus documents written by the world’s leading climate scientists, yet every effort is made to convince governments around the world to adopt the reports prior to their release. This political reconciliation process has resulted in a softening of some of the scientific findings as drafts are finalized.
Yet other scientists argue that the right balance was struck between science and politics, and that getting governments on-side before the document’s release bolsters the ability of the report to get policy makers to take action to combat climate change.
Joel Smith, former deputy of the US Environmental Protection Agency told the PBS NewsHour, “The report is actually adopted by the governments that participated in this meeting line by line. So they get to work with us on the science. So they can’t just simply say, ‘It is a report of the scientists,’ and walk away from it. They have bought into it.”
Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at PrincetonUniversity, agreed with Mr Smith that the political process led to a more effective result. He also emphasized that scientists retained the right of veto.
“It's informative,” said Professor Oppenheimer on NewsHour. “It lays out for governments, what are the vulnerabilities? Where are there going to be changes that they have to get prepared to be ready to adapt to? Where are there changes to society, like in agriculture or health, that are so threatening, that they ought to cut emissions in order to avoid those sorts of changes?”
In May, the next report of the IPCC will recommend policies and economic measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
While the scientific community is all but universally united behind the IPCC consensus, there will almost certainly be further political wrangling before the recommendations are implemented in some countries, including the United States.
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and now its ranking Republican, told Fox News, “The IPCC process more closely resembles a Democrat or Republican Party convention platform battle over the specific wording of an issue plank, not a scientific process.” He added, “the latest IPCC summary will surely spawn another round of media alarmism and hype.” Senator Inhofe once famously labeled climate change “the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”.
Yet the new head of the environment committee, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), hit back: “This powerful report confirms the very real dangers that global warming poses for us all.” Senator Boxer has held six hearings on climate change since taking over the helm in January and has now invited the Bush administration to respond to last week’s US Supreme Court decision that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. It is not yet clear how the Bush administration will respond.
The Bush administration, which has been accused of routinely censoring climate change reports produced by US government scientists, has so far maintained that it will not cap greenhouse gas emissions and will not participate in the Kyoto Protocol. President Bush walked away from the protocol in 2001, saying that it would “wreck” the US economy and was unfair because it did not impose stringent enough controls on developing countries.
Meanwhile, the House Science and Technology Committee will also hold a hearing on April 17 to review the IPCC’s findings. Committee chair Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) said the report packed a “powerful and sobering message” and that governments need to act now to reduce the vulnerability of their most at-risk communities.
“For the first time, the world’s top scientists are able to confidently attribute changes in a wide variety of ecosystems in all parts of the world to human-induced global warming,” said Mr Gordon in a statement. “We can neutralize some of the impact by better adapting our society to these changes. We should identify our vulnerable communities and begin working to reduce these vulnerabilities.”
2500 scientists from all over the world do agree about climate changes. Many hold PhD and Post-Doctorate diploma besides years of field work.
I do not think Bush is competent to discuss about climate changes. He is simply a politician, not a scientist ! Many politicians from USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China are simply afraid of what is really global warming: a reality, not a fiction and a reality going to hurt billions of people.
Written by Argeos
on 4/8/2007
Yes, they have predicted weather changes up to 100 years in the future....although they can not correctly predict the 5 day forecast. This is the biggest bunch of bull the world has yet to offer. Bush doesn't want to bow down to the Kyoto agreement because even if the U.S. did join, then the Carbon Dioxide levels would drop around .07% within 100 years. Yeah count me out. And how come when it gets hotter somewhere its classed as global warming, and if it gets colder, it is somehow classed as a specific enviromental anamoly that doesn't count. They can't really say all the icebergs are melting because out of the thousands upon thousands in the world, they have looked at very few. Yes we should not polute. I am against it because it makes me have to breathe heavier, but there is no need to actually kill ourselves in the process or down grade ourselves back to living in caves. If the world doesn't like the way the U.S. looks at the world, either bring it, or go do your own thing, and a few years down the road we will fall into step. Stop bitching at us for acting like being a world super power, and then wait for our approval to do anything....its a little sad. And Al Gore should go back to his ranch, and maybe do what Bush did at the Crawford ranch and build a methane gas system that warms his entire house for 25% the cost of other homes. We should use solar panels and stop being dependent on oil, not for the planet Earth, but for America, so it can be self sufficient. How about Nuclear Energy again, that gives off no CO2 emmisions, but liberals in Washington stopped the production of plants....whats up with that??
Written by falla830
on 4/8/2007
In reference to Bad2theBones' analogy about humans being a virus on this planet. Being immune to a virus doesn't make it go away. Some species have survived for many millions of years. Humans(as a species) have only been on Earth a snap of the fingers in comparison. I don't believe it is our destiny to become extinct just yet, though I am a bit of a optimist.
Written by Ireason
on 4/8/2007
i feel that if we don't do anything soon, all of earth's residents will be doomed to die...:( so i wish that everyone would wake up and realize we need to cut back on all of the consumer products and walk instead of driving that five minute ride....all that carbon dioxide in the air and pollution and the holes in the ozone layer should jusst about make people realize what's happening now...why doesn't everyone just turn off the buzzing alarm clock and wake up and start helping...even if only a little?
Written by wantstohelpearth'scondition....
on 4/8/2007
Written by
on 4/8/2007
Whether Global Warming is natural or human induced, we are going to have the same problems. We are going to have mass extinctions of animals, droughts,etc.... The fact of the matter is that there still must be something to done to help prepare the world for this. Even though there have been climate changes similar in the past due to natural causes, a whole lot of people died. Lets look at Europe from 1550-1700. Disease ran rampant, entire harvests were losts. Europes population during this period dropped dramatically. If we dont prepare for these changes, we going to going to shit out of luck.
The policies that would need to be enacted in the case that Global Warming due to humans is true should be enacted regardless. The United States should reduce its oil independence , and I think anyone how is tired of paying 3 dollars for a gallon of gas, or the record gas bills during the winter. Pollution is still a humungous problem. I know a lot of people don't believe in science, but anyone who lives near a very industrialized city knows what Ozone Action days are, they know what acid rain can do to a cars paint job, the forests, the buildings. Pollution may not cause Global warming but it certainly causes increased chances of cancer and respiratory diseases.
Written by Ed
on 4/8/2007
Anyone who thinks global warming is not happening is a fool. I agree that politicians put their fingers in this issue without any evidance, but the summery report currently available on the IPCC website forecast a stark future for man kind. CO2 levels are higher than they have been in the past million years and have increased from an atmospheric consentration of 280 ppm to 380 ppm in only 100 years. This is not natrual flucuation. This is going to be the biggest problem humanity will face this century, but there are solutions to mitigate the problem. Check out this report on effecient energy solutions that have potential uses to reduce emissions in the US. www.ases.org
Written by
on 4/8/2007
Yes, the climate is changing, Yes, elephant cars are an absurdity, yes, the trees and the whales are going down and there are far too many of us.
But this is the top of an interglacial, the most unstable point in geological history. Perfect for manic depressive rainforest monkeys now with SUV's. It may be a perfectly ordinary interglacial. We are in a desperate flap that current CO2 levels are higher than those of past interglacial, because of the Vostok and Dome C ice core CO2 data. But who on earth said ice cores in glacial terrain that is always subject to lateral slip, can hold CO2 without leakage for about 600,000 or 800,000 years? Also, when the bit gets to the ice 3000 metres down, the CO2 will explosively phase shift, in the deeper sections, first to liquid and then to gas. Check the phase diagram for CO2. The bubbles being sampled are hence artifacts of the drilling. So we have another dubious hockey stick graph, when we graft that lot onto Keelings Manua Loa atmopspheric CO2 data.
We need independent confirmation of past interglacial CO2 levels, and as far as I know, that we do not have.
Also, the extra 2 mm sealevel rise currently causing panic can be entirely explained by the roughly 50 million water bores currently pumping up groundwater worldwide. The International Water Management Association estimates we pump about 1000 cubic kilometres up per year. Evaporate most of that and spread the resulting extra rain over the surface of the planet, with its 70 percent of oceans, and you get your 2 mm extra sea level rise, over the 1 mm of the last century. Do the sums youself, don't believe me.
Written by Dingodog
on 4/8/2007
Those who cite Michael Crighton's fictional novel _State of Fear_ should be informed that while he may try to make it appear that he has real data, in fact he gets everything wrong. At one point in that book for example he asserts, with a footnote, that glaciers in Iceland are _growing_. In fact, there is a large scientific literature based on substantial research showing that the glaciers in Iceland, which are the largest in Europe, are rapidly shrinking, and Icelandic geologists expect glaciers in Iceland to be _gone_ by 2050. Crighton is no scholar, he's using his status and wealth to publish lies in the interest of his stock holdings. His pseudo-knowledge does not hold a candle to the real science of the IPCC report.
Written by MBT
on 4/8/2007
Global warming is happening because of human greed, ignorance, and overpopulation. Before going to bed every night, engineers roll on the floor laughing their heads off when they think about how stupid people are. Cocktail Charlie designs automobiles to guzzle gas and pollute the atmosphere because Cocktail Charlie, not engineers, run the world. Want to solve all of the problems facing the human race? It's oh so simple. Remove all of the Cocktail Charlies from power and let engineers run the planet.
Written by Ed
on 4/8/2007
The critics who complain about unnecessary alarmism are usually the same people who are alarmist about the war on terror. The same persons who defend spending hundreds of billions on the war in Iraq, pre-emptive strikes against Iran etc. etc.
Written by Count Iblis
on 4/8/2007
Anyone who thinks that hundreds of millions of cars pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere every day is not going to eventually result in climatic effects has no understanding of basic physics.
Written by Chris Grose
on 4/8/2007
In 1996 a scientist friend did a college paper on New Orleans.The conclusion? The city is under sea level, right by the water. The paper predicted the now obvious: major flooding will happen. With global warming the city is finished. Too bad it was a cultural icon. Only the oblivious or the choiceless will now remain in such a guaranteed disaster territory.
Written by Charles Monroe
on 4/8/2007
Global warming is more religion than anything else now. Scientists have replaced priests, and the UN is trying to rival the Catholic church with the dogma it produces in the guise of policy. It's interesting to see those who do disagree with global warming treated as modern day heretics.
Written by THC
on 4/8/2007
You all do realize that you and every other living mammal on the planet are producing CO2 24 hours a day every single time you exhale? Maybe we should limit how many breaths humans take a day...
Written by Dom
on 4/8/2007
It is high time the scientists started using real true science and stopped playing politics for the money they can get
Written by R Button
on 4/8/2007
Unfortunately the level of intelligence in the US is that Bush and those like him will put more faith in a fictictous god than in science... and any civilization that is that stupid deserves to be extinct. While Bush and the Pope tell us how dangerous homosexuals are to the future of the planet, heterosexuals are rapidly overpopulating the planet out of existence... (and to do otherwise according to the Poop is a sin) ... and you know what... I don't give a damn! Humanity deserves exactly what it will get. If the planet can succeed in killing off about 80% of the parasites that infest it, maybe at least the PLANET can survive.
Written by kd
on 4/8/2007
The scientific data should not be confused with the political interference! If the scientific data is CORRECT, then why are there political concerns? It appears to be another misconception of politicians to persuade the political vote.
It is cold in ILLINOIS, not warming
Written by Michael S. Pinnell
on 4/8/2007
You don't have to agree with the report on global warming,but at least look at it,think about it.
Think about what the people that are climbing mountains right now are sending back about glaciers no longer there.
Think about what the earth was like before automobiles and smoke stacks belching black smoke.
Just take a moment and think,look it up,don't rush to judgements,but what ever you do,THINK ABOUT IT....
Written by MossFarms
on 4/8/2007
Written by
on 4/8/2007
- sorry, the IPCC report is flawed to begin with, and is based on wrong assumptions and data... it should have never been published to begin with...
- the report, and the attitude of the industrialized world, is bigoted and rascist - entirely aimed at telling the developing world that it cannot come to terms with its own industrialization and entry into the world economy...
- medieval environmentalism sponsored by entities such as the IPCC are yet another indication of the infestation of neo-Marxists and the politicization of what should be commerce solutions...
- global warming is a political industry to itself, but fails to fool the enlightened...
Written by will
on 4/7/2007
Since Mars is warming even more rapidly than earth, perhaps we should invest some effort in discovering how we'll cope with whatever it is that's warming the entire solar system.
The main problem with the above story is that it takes at face value the idea that the IPCC report is scientific. It is not. It is a political report produced under political management for a political purpose. And that's why any real science has been almost completely excluded. If you dig, you'll discover that the reviewers were not given access to data; you'll discover the vast majority of "science" involved is based on thoroughly debunked models and sub-grade-school statistical analysis.
Not to say that warming is not happening -- everyone knows we've been warming since the freeze 400 years ago -- but to suggest we base trillions in investment on this political hack job is far worse than the Enron scandal in scope and audacity.
We know so much less than the politicians think we do.
Think about it.
* If humans are causing the warming, why is Mars warming faster than earth?
* If CO2 causes temp rise, why does the record show that temperature goes up BEFORE CO2 rises?
I'd sit back and laugh, but the economic destruction coming, and the impact on the poor of the planet, will be no laughing matter.
Written by MrPete
on 4/7/2007
Maybe the southern staes could use some global warming about now.This follows a pretty cold and still not gone winter.Michael Crichtons book is right on about global warming, its BS
Written by wilhelm vladmir cook
on 4/7/2007
So.....
For those who would like to know more and read the redacted version of the report where might it be available to perusea/
Inquiring minds want to know the reality.
Thanks,
David Furrh/ dfurrh@cox.net
Written by dfurrh@cox.net
on 4/7/2007
The environmentalist movement is the anti-human movement. Earth first, as if the earth were a value without humans. Values are only possible to living, mortal, entities; therefore a rock cannot be a value to another rock, rocks cannot value, they arn't living. But the environmentalists say that "humans are a cancer of the earth." Now this global warming hysteria is urging nations around the world to give up their life blood, oil, to save the planet. The 3 billion without adequate water supply don't have it now and it has nothing to do with so called "pollution." They are poor because they don't know how to produce wealth. Wealth is a product of man, man must produce wealth, it doesn't grow on trees.
As for being "carbon neutral" that just a way for anyone who buys into that to continue polluting, as they would call it, and not feel guilty about. At the same time, Al Gore will get rich from it, he will be selling these guilt credits to people.
"City smog and filthy rivers are not good for men (though they are not the kind of danger that the ecological panic-mongers proclaim them to be). This is a scientific, technological problem--not a political one--and it can be solved only by technology. Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death." -Ayn Rand
Written by Conrad
on 4/7/2007
Written by ernie
on 4/7/2007
one:global warming is not caused by humans
two:global warming is a natural occurance
three:politicians ARE indeed full of ****
four:most likely i'll be dead before anything goes down
five:you will be dead also
six:get a life stop trying to talk about crap you cannot control
Written by Lucifer
on 4/7/2007
I am very confused. If the supreme court ruled to take global warming serious and our dictator Bush plans on ignoring the court,
what next? I read about 6 other states are taking steps to clean
up the emmissions on their own since Bush isn't taking this serious. He must really be living in a bubble and obviously cares
much about making his rich buddies richer, because he surely dosen't plan on doing anything about the environment. I truly, truly don't understand why this idiot isn't impeached.
Written by Ann
on 4/7/2007
Actually ,the system has plans on using weather weapons to cause droughts and storms. Then blame it all on humans.
That way, a global tax can be imposed on those the system says is responsible for "global warming"---All humans, except the elite who profit from this.
By the way,I personally feel that it is somewhat chilly this Easter.
Stay tuned into this Global warming farce and see what their
"solution" will be.
I bet it will be a tax on energy wasters.
First, a new Federal Agency will be established to enforce the new energy usage rules.
Then,those found guilty of breaking the rules will be fined,ALOT.
They can cause power grids to fail once and awhile to show who's in charge.
Don't believe that weather weapons exist?
Ionospheric heaters breaking holes in the ozone?
Fine, but I would find it even more difficult to believe that humans caused global warming.Pollution yes,warming.No.
Welcome to the Prison planet.
Written by Christopher
on 4/7/2007
The problem with "Global Warming" disaster scenarios is that their proponents are equally ignorant of science and of history.
Yes, the world is warmer now than it was in 1900 - or even in 1700. But it was a lot warmer back in 1200, back when the coast of Greenland was ice-free in the summer and the Vikings had dairy farms there - and when Lief Erikson named Labrador "Vinland" for the grape vines that grew there. There are climate cycles that are longer than the ones between winter and summer, longer even than human lives. The cycles last for centuries. This is part of the cycle.
Curiously, the planet Mars is also warming, and more quickly than the Earth is; we didn't cause THAT, either.
Politicians panic in "Chicken Little" cycles, too, but for a different reason; politicians try to stir up panic to gain and keep political power. Al Gore and the UN politicians are behind the "global warming" panic.
Written by Ken Mitchell
on 4/7/2007
What a surprise, Bush stands firmly with Saudi Arabia, in depreciating the impact of the report. The pathetic little man's difficulty this time is that he has a problem that he can't either run away from or kill.
Written by Sayer
on 4/7/2007
Hey Buzzy, you need to get with the program! Why do you think you know better than the vast majority of the worlds scientist? The warm Northern European period you claim as "proof" against global warming is widely recognized as a LOCAL event and GLOBAL temperatures during that period were relatively stable and cool.
The facts are that CO2 levels are off the charts and higher than ever observed thru ice core sampling while at the same time overall global temps have increased faster than ever observed and glaciers are shrinking at speeds far faster than ever observed or predicted. The RAPIDITY of the current warming IN CONJUNCTION WITH the record CO2 levels is what makes the current situation unique and far more than a natural climate cycle.
Written by Mike B.
on 4/7/2007
Here is the link to IPCC report as requested: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf
Written by Elaine McKewon
on 4/7/2007
The only thing funnier than this is the Loser former vice president Gore who "buys" energy "credits" to offset the massive use of electricity/power consumed by his country estate.
Written by Buzzy
on 4/7/2007
Even though tens of thousands of scientists from agree that human activity exascerbates global warming, there are skeptics. No doubt these same people think the moon landing was a hoax, 9/11 was perpetrated by communists, smoking does not cause cancer, and horoscopes are reality. Do a little reading, folks.
Written by Roger Lederer
on 4/7/2007
Not too long ago we were being scared to death about Global Cooling and Stanford Biologist Paul Erlich was adding to the fright with his book The Population Bomb which predicted Global Famine of such magnitude that by the year 2000 the city of London would no longer exist. Get a grip! The IPCC is giving us a new definition of the term Political Science. If you really want to think for yourself and gain an insight into what's happening, stop going along with the herd mentality and read Michael Crighton's book State of Fear. Most of this scientific "concensus" is just scientist afraid to lose their grants for "further study" of the problem. There is not one shred of evidence that humans are causing global warming.
Written by Bearish
on 4/7/2007
Silly headline...
The IPCC report itself is nothing if not a political document. Perhaps we should better say something along the lines of "Science Cools Global Warming Fever, Left's Political coup d'état Delayed".
Written by Normondo
on 4/7/2007
The author completely discredits the rest of the article with this distortion:
"While the scientific community is all but universally united behind the IPCC consensus..."
Does that mean there are only 2 or 3 scientists who don't buy the jive? 200 or 300? 2000 or 3000? What the heck does "all but universally united" mean?
Makes it sound like there's still enough time for you naysayers to jump on the bandwagon, but JUST BARELY!!!
Written by JPM
on 4/7/2007
It doesn't matter whether we "clean up our act or not", for the earth is aliving organism and we the human race are just a virous. Once earth's natural immune system kicks in, as I believe it already has, man will be extinct as well.
Written by Bad2theBone
on 4/7/2007
An environmental report watered down by governments.. you mean like OURS? I'm shocked. And by the way, Lee Raymond, former chairman of the board of ExxonMobil had a lot to do with helping the Bushies water down climate change reports -- and was VERY well paid for it. You may have noticed that XON is trying very hard to back away from that posture now that Democrats dominate the political horizon.
Well, the residents of N.O. have paid the Corps of Engineers/local/national political price and others along the Gulf Coast will, too. Of course, Okie Inhofe and his ilk will will keep collecting oil company contributions and getting re-elected. Backbone and integrity sell much less than the cost of working pumps or a levee.
Maybe at some point we will all agree that this corruption causes lives to be lost and even the lives of poor people matter.
Just don't take our oil pacifier away, Saudi Arabia.
Did you notice that Boone Pickens was trying hard to buy up water rights in a number of Texas counties. Maybe God made oilmen in case we run short of politicians to hate.
Written by Bob Green
on 4/7/2007
The Bush administration did not 'walk away from the protocol", and making that statement reveals your bias. The IPCC is, in fact, a purely political report--you know that and your readers know that because virtually all the quotes you offer are by politicians--not scientists. Learn to write objectively.
Written by Stuart Hillyer
on 4/7/2007
In the 70;s We were running out of oil. I bought a smaller fuel effecient auto,
solar panels for heating was the fad. 10 percent ethenol is in use..
Thirty years later we have not run out of oil. Globle warming is in.
We need solor panels and more ethenol, 85 percent for flex fuel autos.
Globle warming is the next ".com".
Written by Ernie
on 4/7/2007
Written by
on 4/7/2007
A correction to my other comment:
I was referring to lies RE the year 1200 posted by "Ken Mitchell" - not "Sayer." Usually a poster's name is at the top of their paragraph.
Written by E.A.
on 4/7/2007
Or current Secretary of the Interior (the people entrusted with our national parks and such), Dirk Kempthorne, was a former lobbyist for a major chemical corporation.
His predecessor, also appointed by the boy King was Gale Norton, a the lead paint industry. Look up her record and you will see what is important to this administration.
Written by Hector
on 4/7/2007
Why is it conservatives quote Ayn Rand, the proponent of creative enterprise, to condemn individualistic creative adaptation as a negative economic force? Seems the ability of American corporate monopolistic capital concentration is immobile in the face of even minor challenges, such as producing clean competitively priced power or low pollution high efficiency transport.
Coal powered utilities, the Nuke industry, auto & oil frat brothers, et al, would rather protect their entrenched power with massive PR disinformation and K Street lobbied subsidies that make it appear as if it is "free enterprise".
Come now, right wing apologists, to defend the capitalist elitist dinosaurs of our destruction!
Written by sanjuan
on 4/7/2007
I guess I don't understand peoples' resistance to the idea of human caused global warming. It seems naive to assume a study of this magnitude has no merit. Wouldn't anything humans could do to even slow the effects of global warming be the correct course of action? Must we be on the brink of extinction before deciding to do something? Saying it isn't so doesn't really make the problem go away.
Written by Ireason
on 4/7/2007
One of the most persistent and effective lies from the "skeptic" community involves the supposed existence of natural warming cycles that rival the current man-made one. This propaganda is seen in the claim from "Sayer" on this message board, who lies about the year 1200 being warmer overall than today (citing anomalies from Greenland). That was not global warming, just a regional variation of brief duration. See:
http://whyfiles.org/218glo_warm/images/variations.jpg
None of these "conservatives" (who think conservation is a dirty word) have done original research in the field. All they do is sit behind microphones and bastardize the context of legitimate data. They second-guess the real scientists who actually go out and drill ice cores. Those real scientists were the ones who _gathered_ the data showing relatively mild natural warming. They are trying to explain to non-scientists (or scientists in non-applicable disciplines) that the current cycle is NOT natural, and that its magnitude exceeds warming events over the past 650,000+ years.
It is time to stop these devious tactics and face the problem like grown-ups. Getting "conservatives" to actually conserve and give up their self-righteous gluttony would be a major step. A global peaking of oil production may force that hand, but it won't be an easy ride.
Curbing mindless population growth is also a key factor. CO2 emissions coincide with the number of emitters and behavioral changes can only help so much. We need more contraception to restore the natural balance between births and deaths. We must also abandon the false promise of economic growthism, which is now mostly overcrowding and depletion.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
To
Buzz Right Back on this article