Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, April 5, 2007 | Science : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts

by Andrew C. Revkin

Reposted from NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/science/earth/05climate.html?ref=science

The latest United Nations assessment of the role of humans in global warming has found with "high confidence" that greenhouse gas emissions are at least partly responsible for a host of changes already under way, including longer growing seasons and shrinking glaciers.

A summary of the working draft of the report, to be released Friday in Brussels, was provided to The New York Times yesterday by several people involved in reviewing it. It is a detailed follow-up to a February report by the United Nations group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was the fourth assessment since 1990 of the basic science that points to a human hand on the planet's thermostat.

That report said there was at least a 90 percent chance that most warming since 1950 had resulted from a continuing buildup of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere. The new report describes the specific effects of climate changes on people and ecology; identifies those species and regions at greatest risk; and describes options for limiting risks.

Some of the changes could be beneficial, but most will prove harmful in the long run, the report says.

It finds that global warming caused by humans has almost certainly contributed to recent shifts in ecosystems, weather patterns, oceans and icy regions, and that it will have large and lasting effects on human affairs and on the planet's web of life in this century.

The draft report predicts a variety of health effects as well, with "increased deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts," but also "some benefits to health such as fewer deaths from cold."

Also in the plus column, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas, are contributing to a greener world, according to the draft.

"Based on satellite observations since the early 1980s, there is high confidence that there has been a trend in many regions towards earlier greening of vegetation in the spring and increased net primary production linked to longer growing seasons and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations," it said.

But warming in cool regions can bring mixed results, the draft says. For example, while temperate and higher latitudes could be friendlier to farming, they are also proving friendlier to weeds, as well as insect pests and wildfires that are likely to imperil forests.

Final details of the summary are being discussed by hundreds of authors and government representatives from more than 100 countries meeting this week in Brussels and conferring by e-mail.

Scientists and government officials sparred over the wording of the draft on Wednesday, according to some people involved, with disagreements on the level of certainty in projections of health and ecological consequences of warming.

But over all, the report is expected to provide significant new detail on a world increasingly influenced by human actions, most notably the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted mainly by burning fossil fuels and forests.

In the long run, most regions are likely to be more harmed than helped by the changes, the draft says. For example, projections for coming decades foresee intensifying drought and downpours, as well as a relentless intrusion of rising seas — at an uncertain rate — along crowded coasts and around low-lying islands.

Water supplies fed by alpine snows or ice sheets are already experiencing changes and could be greatly disrupted, it said.

Among other findings, the draft says:

¶"Coasts are very likely to be exposed to increasing risks due to climate change and sea-level rise, and the effect will be exacerbated by increasing human-induced pressures on coastal areas."

¶"It is likely that corals will experience a major decline due to increased bleaching and mortality due to rising seawater temperatures."

¶Many of the world's regions that are already vulnerable to climate and coastal hazards are likely to see the biggest effects from additional changes driven by the buildup of greenhouse gases. "Poor communities can be especially vulnerable," it says, "because they tend to be concentrated in relatively high-risk areas, have more limited coping capacities, and can be more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies."

The existing and projected threats to these regions are justification for a greatly intensified effort by development groups, wealthy countries, and governments in poor countries to increase resilience in regions most at risk, officials said.

Achim Steiner, a United Nations under secretary general who is executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, would not comment directly on the climate panel's draft findings. But he said in an e-mail exchange that development projects in the world's struggling countries would need to take climate hazards into account.

"Trillions of dollars will be invested in infrastructure in developing countries alone over the coming years," he said. "The challenge is to ensure that climate change impacts are factored into investment decisions at the outset so that, say a road, railway or power plant, is planned with climate change in mind."

Comments 1 - 48 of 48 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #29873 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 5, 2007 at 9:03 am

 avatarThe ideal forum for a major atheist civil war type punch up:-) I say if you're not doing something to cut back energy use or encourage alternate energy, you're a selfish, reckless bastard!!!

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

2. Comment #29874 by Stoic on April 5, 2007 at 9:29 am

The draft report predicts a variety of health effects as well, with "increased deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts,


Just what we need. I can see it now: "Global Warming: The end is nigh!"

Perhaps, though, we should start looking out for what will come. As Christ descends from the heavens to take back his people, I expect he will be bringing chariots of air conditioners and lemonade.

Other Comments by Stoic

3. Comment #29876 by Seti on April 5, 2007 at 9:46 am

 avatarThis is one of the things which gives such urgency to the religion debate. There are those in the US, particularly, who have power, and who genuinely beleive that there's no need to worry about the planet as Jesus is coming anyway - and even that the more mess we make of it, the sooner he will come to rescue his people (bleurgh!!!) One of these people is a VP of Ford Motor Company, (I think) who is a young-earther. He has said that the carbon equation cannot possibly be right because it didn't take millions of years to sequester the carbon, it was put in place in one go (9.43 am on 23rd October 4023BCE, I think?)

Other Comments by Seti

4. Comment #29879 by pastafarian82 on April 5, 2007 at 9:56 am

Comment #29876 by Seti on April 5, 2007 at 9:46 am

(9.43 am on 23rd October 4023BCE, I think?)


They claim it was pm, not am actually.

But anyway, Global Warming is actually a useful analogy for the paradigm of Fundamentalist religions denying scientific concensus. No one is going to be affected by this report, those who say Global Warming is comming will scream louder(Which means what, a new slide show?) and those who deny it will discount it as usual. Global Warming, despite being supported internationally by the majority of scientists, is a "Controversy." "The jury is still out," they say when the actual jury has deliberated, delivered the verdict and run for the hills because they realize that a shit storm's a commin. This is yet another sad, sad example of the anti-science culture that has developed when it is inconvient to dogmatic belief.

Other Comments by pastafarian82

5. Comment #29883 by cassdenata on April 5, 2007 at 10:23 am

The fundies who believe that jesus is coming back is definitely part of the story but not the whole thing. The publics misunderstanding of science and their plain indifference to science as not essential to "anything" in their lives plays a larger role. If only people knew how close we came to destroying the earth before we even knew what was happening, with the hole in the ozone layer. If we would had used bromoflurocarbons instead of chloroflurocarbons for refrigeration (both provide the same service but bromofluorocarbons are much more destructive to the ozone and luckily, slightly more expensive) it would have been extremely destructive. The public doesn't understand the science of climate change. The public doesn't comprehend that science is a study of reality, it isn't (or shouldn't be) politically motivated, or emotionally charged. This disconnect from scientific research and reality is a big part of the problem. With a more all encompassing understanding of science, our political/economic and social policies could be mostly driven by that science. While many have begun to realize the threat of climate change and unstable foreign oil supplies, they rush right to energy sources that could possibly cause greater environmental and social destruction than oil/gas (I'm thinking ethanol here). If our policy were guided by science we would weigh the alternatives and base our answers on energetics, CO2 emissions and other issues.

Other Comments by cassdenata

6. Comment #29884 by Monsterbeach on April 5, 2007 at 10:27 am

"Global warming". (Read between the lines when power use this as a mantra)

Other Comments by Monsterbeach

7. Comment #29885 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 5, 2007 at 10:29 am

 avatarWhile many have begun to realize the threat of climate change and unstable foreign oil supplies, they rush right to energy sources that could possibly cause greater environmental and social destruction than oil/gas (I'm thinking ethanol here).

I must confess total confusion on this front. So much pro, so much con.

That said, I do prefer the idea of massive promotion and subsidy of home solar and wind, if every person on earth provided their own home electricity, and could charge their own vehicles. That would knock a big hole in the problem. Why get into ethanol in such a big way when these options exist?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

8. Comment #29887 by ridelo on April 5, 2007 at 10:51 am

Playtime for humanity is over? Do we have to act as grown-ups from now on? Or can we go on as technofreak but scientophobic chimps?

Other Comments by ridelo

9. Comment #29889 by Jiten on April 5, 2007 at 11:01 am

 avatarBiofuels are not the answer to our energy needs.They'll create problems of their own.Instead of land being used to grow crops to feed people it'll be used to grow crops to produce ethanol.This single fact will cause unimaginable social strife and will do nothing for the environment.And that's ironic isn't it?

Other Comments by Jiten

10. Comment #29890 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 11:09 am

 avatar
While many have begun to realize the threat of climate change and unstable foreign oil supplies, they rush right to energy sources that could possibly cause greater environmental and social destruction than oil/gas (I'm thinking ethanol here). Cassdenata, I would be interested in learning the greater environmental and social destruction to be caused by the use of ethanol. Where I live they are pushing to build new ethanol plants (since our state grows a lot of corn, which is used to make ethanol) all the time because of its gentler effects on the environment. Just asking if you could share those with me, out of curiosity.

Other Comments by Fedler

11. Comment #29893 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 11:21 am

 avatar@Jiten,

I understand your point on ethanol, but I'm not sure I agree. I live in Iowa, USA, which is a HUGELY agricultural state (my friends used to joke that we have more cows than people, but then it turned out to be true). But I would be hard pressed to say that using some land to produce ethanol instead of crops will make a significant impact on the food supply, especially with the growing use/interest (at least in Iowa) in bioengineered crops which produce more food from less plants.

I'll have to do some searching to see how much space an ethanol plant (factory) takes up...at least some time when I'm not at work...

EDIT: Pros and cons of ethanol at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol


Other Comments by Fedler

12. Comment #29899 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 5, 2007 at 11:50 am

 avatarEDIT: Pros and cons of ethanol at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

Good article. The other pro, is you can make ethanol from almost anything vegetable, even wood. Once demand rises, these other options should come onstream to fill the demand?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

13. Comment #29901 by Jiten on April 5, 2007 at 12:00 pm

 avatarFedler You're probably right about the US but my worry is that land in developing countries will be given over to these cash crops and not just land already planted but new land obtained by deforestation as has happened in Brasil with the Soybean crop.Moreover countries that would have been self-sufficient in foodstuffs will now have to import much of it.And the hardest hit will be the poor.

Why go down the ethanol route when we only need to harness 1/100th of 1% of the sun's energy that falls on the Earth for free? We could cover for example the Empty Quarter of Arabia in solar panels and that would provide the WORLD'S energy needs.But we know what happens when we rely on the Saudis for our energy needs,don't we?

Other Comments by Jiten

14. Comment #29902 by cassdenata on April 5, 2007 at 12:06 pm

I'll try to break it down but even though I have read much on this topic, I am no expert.

The ethanol example, actually is a bit of a dubious example of how science can make decisions for us, simply because to a large extent the jury isn't out. I have read reports by viable organizations that say it takes more fossil fuels to create ethanol than you get out of it but I have also read reports by viable organizations that say the opposite. The energetics depend largely on the feedstock (corn, sugar cane, waste cellulosic products). Corn is the least energy efficient, sugar cane is a huge improvement. The use of cellulosic products is very promising because much of it typically goes to waste. For instance, when loggers clear-cut a forest, they usually pile up the wood debris and burn it. This could be used to make ethanol. In addition, fast-growing, high-energy weedy plants that don't require much fertilizer or water, such as switch-grass could be used.

Other factors come in to play. I read a study about the potential to use agricultural crops to produce the fuels for the state I live in, Florida. It would take an area larger than the size of the state of Florida to grow enough crops to supply Florida's power needs...and these would all have to go towards foods not fuels. Although, I will admit that many people smarter than me have found fault in these studies. Brazil can use sugar cane because it has higher energetic output than corn and their energy demands per-capita and otherwise are much lower than they are in the extravagant U.S.

Some problems with ethanol are no-brainers. A new ethanol plant is looking to go in to the state of Florida that uses corn, shipped down from the midwest. It is likely that the fuels used to ship it here will outweigh the benefits.

There are other promising technologies for mobile fuels. Biodiesels made up out of algae, would likely take up much less land, not compete with food supplies and could be fertilized with many waste products. Digesting waste products such as sewage, landfill waste, etc anaerobically and microbially yields methane and requires very little energy for continued production. This is one of my favorite technologies due to its sustainability and its ability to make something out of waste.

Transportation fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, require energy for their creation and all other aspects of their supply. Until the source of this "non-mobile" energy is composed of solar, wind and more controversially nuclear, we will never be carbon neutral.

Having said all this, there are amazingly heated discussions about these topics and like I indicated, there are intelligent people who conflict in many of these pessimistic findings.

Other Comments by cassdenata

15. Comment #29918 by Seti on April 5, 2007 at 1:32 pm

 avatar[quote](9.43 am on 23rd October 4023BCE, I think?)

They claim it was pm, not am actually. [/quote]

Well, he could have finished by 9.43am, but he stopped for a fag.

Other Comments by Seti

16. Comment #29926 by Olliedog on April 5, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Wait, I though God Hates Fags?

Other Comments by Olliedog

17. Comment #29931 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 2:42 pm

 avatar@Jiten,

Very good point about developing countries, and well taken. Ethanol is a start, but I would agree it's still far from perfect.

@cassdenata,

Thanks for the info. One thing that did surprise me in the Wiki article I mentioned previously, and one of the main points you raised, is the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). I didn't realize that. Sugar can and waste products do seem the more efficient way to go.

Whatever happened to the solar energy buzz? It seems to have disappeared from the public view in the last couple years.

Wind power has also started to grow a little bit here in Iowa, but so far the investment doesn't reap large benefits unless it's done on a large scale, which makes people nervous if they can't test the waters a little bit first before diving headlong into it. In addition, the local power companies own all the equipment needed to start a wind farm, and they charge highly for it.

Other Comments by Fedler

18. Comment #29934 by cassdenata on April 5, 2007 at 3:02 pm

From what I have read, solar power efficiencies have increased and new materials are being used to make them that are cheaper in the last few years. These technologies are all recent and would take some time to market. One problem with solar is the economics. The traditional silicon solar panel, takes a lot of energy to create and has a pretty limited lifetime. So it takes awhile to break even and then it needs to be replaced fairly rapidly.

Other Comments by cassdenata

19. Comment #29937 by andyinsdca on April 5, 2007 at 3:15 pm

 avatarCan someone explain what this has to do with the discussion of atheism?

Other Comments by andyinsdca

20. Comment #29943 by Dreamer's Dilemma on April 5, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Well, andyinsdca, it is quite simple really. The folks that frequent this site have already settled the matter of God/noGod and have moved on to other matters. Despite an earlier post's claim otherwise, they are politically motivated and emotionally charged and have thrown in their lot with the likes of AlGore, he of "Inconvenient Lie" fame. They are also rather intolerant of dissent, attacking those who disagree in a rather arrogant and condescending way, as only liberals can. Just watch the later posts and see for yourself.

Other Comments by Dreamer's Dilemma

21. Comment #29949 by Jiten on April 5, 2007 at 4:56 pm

 avatarWell andyinsdca,have you taken it upon yourself to decide that EVERYTHING on this site has to do wholly with atheism?

philos don't be so patronising.Has everyone here really bought the package deal that goes with atheism? Really? How do you know?

Other Comments by Jiten

22. Comment #29958 by Veronique on April 5, 2007 at 6:13 pm

 avatarBriancoughlan & Fedler,

I think that the problem with massive monoculture is the need for chemical aids.

I read an article about the mysterious demise of millions of honey bees in the US. In 1997 there was a massive wipe out of the bees in France and the government was petitioned by farmers to ban one of Bayer's pesticides called 'gaucho'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6438373.stm

http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/02/27/bees-dying-by-the-millions/

I searched further and found imidaclopride as the active ingredient that is a neurotoxin. The bees are paralysed and unable to get back to the hives. Those that do deposit tainted honey.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9741

is worth a look. If we grow so much to produce ethanol (which refining will also contribute to CO2 emissions), biofuels may well end up being a worse problem than the benefits they bestow.

Losing honey bees is distinctly unfunny. It is estimated that they pollinate about a third of our vegetable food stuffs. As the article states (baldly) if the bees die, so do we.

Fedler I am very interested in solar power. Our government won't grant enough tax dollars to any research and the people who had researched took their results overseas and the products are now being imported, value added!

For individuals, it is very expensive. To generate the power my household needs on a daily basis (grid interactive) would cost me $53,000 in capital outlay and the generous federal government will rebate to a maximum of $4,000. Not much incentive for us to make such a massive investment in generating our own power. I hope that I can go ahead and petition out state government to add to the feds and grant its own rebate as well.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

23. Comment #29959 by Veronique on April 5, 2007 at 6:29 pm

 avatarTo:
andyinsdca, Dreamer and philos.

The article that heads this thread is about climate change in case you hadn't noticed. This thread, consequently is commenting, inter alia, about climate change.

In any case, we are also information disseminators and give info to each other. What on earth is wrong with that? How long have you been looking at this site?

The topics are quite far reaching and most of the posters are well versed (much more than I am) in a wide variety of topics. I, personally, am very pleased at what I learn, contribute and otherwise enjoy on this site. Are you sure you are at the right place here? You don't really sound it to me.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

24. Comment #29962 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 6:48 pm

 avatar@cassdenata and Veronique,

Thanks for your comments. It's too bad doing the 'right' thing gets so expensive.

@andyinsdca, Dreamer's Dilemma, and philos,

I'm not sure what sparked your comments, but this particular thread is about global warming and alternative fuel scenarios. I've never seen Al Gore's documentary. I'm not politically motivated, only interested in learning about the potential problem of global warming. I don't have clear definitions of what a 'liberal' is and I don't associate myself with one particular political party or another. I don't think anyone here claimed that Dawkins was an expert on global warming. In fact, I don't believe anyone even mentions Dawkins' name until philos mentions it in post #21.

In short, I'm not certain what you're trying to add to the discussion. You appear to be unhappy that we're not discussing atheism. If that's so, I'm sorry. I would then politely direct you to other threads on this website you can participate in. I'm not being arrogant, intolerant or condescending (as you clearly expect us to be), rather just wondering what you would like to add to the discussion.

Other Comments by Fedler

25. Comment #29965 by Veronique on April 5, 2007 at 7:11 pm

 avatarOh Fedler,

Have a look at this article. This is what I meant about other species Yorker (on a different thread).

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/04/296/

If growing vegetation for biofuels means this sort of habitat destruction in some unscrupulous places, then we have to go back to the drawing board. We cannot be party to this, it is so distressing.

Sorrow
V

Oh shit! Found this one as well from Common Dreams.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/04/306/

Double sorrow
V

Other Comments by Veronique

26. Comment #29967 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 7:33 pm

 avatar@Veronique,

Frightening. Although I tend to be leary when statistics are given in an article (because any stats can be found to justify anything), this is still worthy of further attention. Destroying habitat for alternative fuels doesn't make sense, which is why ethanol, solar, wind or waste by-product power seems to be more feasible. For ethanol we're already growing the corn, anyway, for other purposes (at least here in Iowa) and putting up an ethanol factory in the middle of a corn field makes a negligible impact on an ecosystem. We're not destroying anything (generally speaking) by harnessing solar or wind power and we're recycling by using waste products.

But, alas, I may be becoming too optimistic....

Other Comments by Fedler

27. Comment #29977 by Veronique on April 5, 2007 at 9:39 pm

 avatarphilos,

I still have a problem understanding why you are here on this thread.

So you are critical of RD's latest public tangent. So what. For 30 years he has been writing about evolutionary biology for the general public, tasked by his fellow scientists to do so. He has done admirably well. At least, you appear to have learnt from his public science writings.

Why on earth do you assume that he is one dimensional? Why shouldn't he have other interests allied to his work? Why shouldn't he write about religion as it impacts the general populous? It certainly doesn't require all that much in the way of study to comment on the factional, sectarian in-fighting that seems to be spreading across the globe. That he (and others, I might add) feels it encumbent upon him to bring this massive issue to the public awareness is all to the good.

So he has more temerity than you and writes well. So what. You want the old Prof. back? Sorry he's a developing human and has a lot more than biology to talk about. Maybe you should find another biologist to admire for a while until maybe he/she decides to also write about some other topic. That's life in the fast lane, baby. Get used to it.

Others also write about the evolution of the eye, you know. You could learn lots by spreading your reading further afield. Could be good for your understanding and tolerance of people who aren't the way you want them to be.

As to most Profs being liberal, here in Australia we call it the 'left'. Every university campus I have ever enjoyed is 'left' leaning. It's part of campus life to my knowledge, at least here in Australia. In my time, campus life produced some of the most outspoken debates, with humour, tolerance and development. They were excellent fun and enlightening.

If there's one thing that I have learnt about 'conservatives' or the 'right' (in Australia) is that humour, tolerance and development seem somewhat stultified.

I guess that's the rub. You will find scepticism, disagreement and downright rudeness on these threads. The comments are often trolled as they get in the way of those of us trying to talk to eachother. They become sooo distracting from our main thrusts.

No one is asking you to admire RD. I doubt whether anyone even gives a damn. It seems, for you, however, the milk has been spilt. So sorry, so sad.

Take care
V

Other Comments by Veronique

28. Comment #29980 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 5, 2007 at 10:14 pm

 avatar28. Comment #29971 by philos on April 5, 2007 at 8:00 pm

What sparked my comments was dismay and concern
that this 'clear-thinking oasis' website is
cloaked in liberally biased propaganda,


Oh dear. Where to start. Not all atheists are monolithic about this issue. Exhibit A, a nasty argy bargy between several of us on the thread below :

http://richarddawkins.net/article,805,How-Many-Scientists,Thomas-L-Friedman-The-New-York-Times

My own position remains that when 90% of the relevant experts are broadly agreed on an issue, it is "9/11 was an inside job" class paranoia to suspect some kind of conspiracy. The science is in, the jury has returned and it's time for action.

I grant you that there are some serious disagreements still to be had about what specific action to take, not least the disputed value of an ethanol economy. Hence my view that solar, wind and wave are the way to go. Subsidise, tax incentivise and create a local army of installers and maintainers for home systems, and modernise the grid so that it works in both directions. Oh and push hybrids and those compressed air cars, and BAN hummers. You should be fined just for having one of those bastards, and do community service for having the poor taste to actually drive one.

What we cannot have is people wandering around claiming that "the jury is out" and "we need more science before we act". This is pissing in the pool, simply contradicted by the facts and if you are doing it today you are a grade A, government inspected miserable shit. (was that sufficiently rude Veronique? I didn't want to disappoint:-))

Now as to your other comments. Americans make up about 3% of the global population. This "liberally biased propaganda", is actually what a lot of people think outside the US, and even in the US. In fact I would argue, that as ideologies go, narrow nationalistic republicanism, ala the GOP is a bizarre minority position globally.

What I'm really saying I guess is this. Please, lets keep your wierd pseudo-religious, completely irrational and dogmatic, uniquely American (and deeply valueless) internal struggles out of our faces, the world has enough real problems to deal with.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

29. Comment #29988 by Veronique on April 6, 2007 at 2:00 am

 avatarBrian,

Hahahahaha. No, you didn't disappoint!! But you don't necessarily distract!! A world of difference. I hope I don't disappoint you either.

Poor old philos. I really do think he's on the wrong web site, poor bloke. And that goes for his mates as well.

I think that the US is actually 2.5% or thereabouts of global population and emits about 25% of global CO2 emissions. It's interesting that in Australia, we contribute about 1.5% (same as Iran) of global CO2 emissions, but on a per capita basis, we are the highest in the world.

That's a pretty indictment isn't it? And our PM is afraid of making changes to our coal exports, our jobs and the amount of dosh needed to put in coal flue scrubbers (he hasn't worked out how to sequester CO2 either). Poor sod! He's gone in November 2007.

Keep an eye on our federal elections. We should always keep an eye on all 1st world countries' elections. It is such a graph of what is actually happening with these pollies and our countries.

Unabashedly political
Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

30. Comment #29994 by E_L_G on April 6, 2007 at 3:22 am

Brian,

It isn't just a debate over science and religion. As a nation built by immigration and expansion, the US has a secular culture that says, "Hey, if things get too bad where you are, then just move on to somewhere less hostile. Them pacific islanders will just have to suck it up, get back in their canoes and head for higher ground."

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the sense is, "so what?" if it is your home. You don't move back to New Orleans unless you are personally willing to assume the risk and cost. It is not the Government's job to tell you how to run your life, with or without Hummer, just provide reasonable institutions to "regulate the seams" and enforce contracts. Much of which is still playing out among people, who had insurance, and their insurance companies in the courts. A very different world view from Europe's and a poorly understood one if you haven't grown up in it.

We can try to change the global trend, but don't expect much organized help from the US. More likely we will all simply have to live with it. 15 years from now our university freshmen will have grown up knowing only global warming, much as today's grew up knowing PC's and cellular phones instead of typewriters and rotary dialing.

There will be pain and dislocation. That's life as most of human history has known it. My generation has just been lucky.

Other Comments by E_L_G

31. Comment #30003 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 6, 2007 at 4:34 am

 avatarWe can try to change the global trend, but don't expect much organized help from the US. More likely we will all simply have to live with it.

Oh I think you both underestimate the US capacity to see it's own self interest, and overestimate the influence that a fraction of the global population can continue to wield as everyone else becomes aware of the the disproportinate global power (hah! sort of a pun) the US has gathered to itself.

There will be dislocation, and change and upheaval, but the US will be experiencing it along with the rest of us. The US urgently needs to reasses the sort of cultural values you note in your post, they are arguably as dangerous and irrational as any religious ideology.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

32. Comment #30004 by Seti on April 6, 2007 at 4:43 am

 avatarThis climate debate gets very heated (har har!!) There's currently a pattern emerging where global warming is becoming the "establishment" so those who like to think of themselves as a bit cleverer, able to spot a conspiracy a mile off, are now rallying to the other side. One would hope they're thinking hard about it, and really understand the arguements, before shouting their mouths off. One would hope...

Like most people I find the science hard going, so I tend to come at it more from a forensics angle. I like to check out the sources. This guy Kary Mullis, for instance. He is indeed a respectable scientist, a chemist. But his field is genetics, not climatology. I doubt if he'd be too pleased if Stephen Hawking, for example, started pontificating about amino acid sequences. I willingly concede that he knows a great deal about it all than I do, but I have a couple of questions:

1) He says science is driven now by economics, and I'm sure he's right. But I would have thought there's considerably more money on the "not human agency" side. Oil companies and motor companies are not short of a bob or two, and they're usually more than willing to throw it at anyone who will help defend and increase their profits.

2) This thing about warming preceding CO2 increases. That's already been answered by the ICCC people, and indeed the answer is right there in Mullis's arguement. As the planet begins to warm, more CO2 gets sequestered in the oceans and vegetation, hence it seems that the CO2 increase is lagging behind. But surely there's a limit to how much CO2 can be sequestered in a short space of time? We're talking of millions of years' worth of carbon here. If that's released at the rate we're releasing it, won't it rapidly overcome the ability of the planet to absorb it?

3) A lot of the other stuff has been answered by the ICCC people. The apparent temperature dip, for example could be the result of "global dimming" as muck spreads in the upper atmosphere and blocks the sun.

Mullis seems to enjoy controversy. For example, he's questioned the link between HIV and AIDS. Now I don't know whether, or why not, any such research has been done. But I do know that here in the real world there appears to be a fairly significant link between people who are HIV+ and those who develop the illnesses described as AIDS. It may not be the whole story, but I don't think it would be a good idea to wait for the precise details to be fairly sure we need to do something about avoiding the spread of the virus.

He also appears to think these are jokes:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/hadith_humor/hadith_laugh.html

Other Comments by Seti

33. Comment #30005 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 6, 2007 at 5:10 am

 avatarKeep an eye on our federal elections. We should always keep an eye on all 1st world countries' elections. It is such a graph of what is actually happening with these pollies and our countries.

I always do, I keep an eye on all major elections. I'm watching out for an online election to take place for the american president in 2008. I love how it ruffled feathers the last time (I was directly involved) and I bet this time, given the growth of global citizens online, we are going to see some serious participation.

http://www.leaderofthefreeworld.com/

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

34. Comment #30008 by E_L_G on April 6, 2007 at 5:55 am

Private Equity means the money doesn't necessarily follow the politics, so it is increasingly difficult to herd the international cats to a single purpose.

The big CO2 issue is ocean acidification. We are already rapidly approaching a crash in global fisheries. Soilent Green anyone?

Other Comments by E_L_G

35. Comment #30009 by Mikado on April 6, 2007 at 6:15 am

Wouldn't it be more productive to wait until the actual report is released and read that instead of press releases from people that clearly do not trust the alleged 'consensus'

Other Comments by Mikado

36. Comment #30012 by Fedler on April 6, 2007 at 6:32 am

 avatarphilos,

Thanks for your comments. I tend to cringe whenever someone starts talking about political propoganda, liberal left-wing blah, blah, blah, I admit I usually tune out and it makes me not want to participate in the discussion because, to me, there is an air of close-mindedness that usually accompanies. That's my own personal experience, at least (ironically, my own close-mindedness).

It will be interesting to view the final report.

Re: the professor. I'd have to agree with Veronique on this one. I'm sure he does have other interests other than atheism and biology, and these evolve along with him.

Brian, I love your comment about Hummers. They truly are the open wound of the auto industry, in my opinion.

Other Comments by Fedler

37. Comment #30021 by Logicel on April 6, 2007 at 8:31 am

 avatarphilos wrote: "What sparked my comments was dismay and concern that this 'clear-thinking oasis' website is cloaked in liberally biased propaganda, as most Professors would see fit (see link below) and not neutral as it should be." (boldface is mine)
________

What an odd coupling: clear-thinking with neutrality? You need not to have an opinion based on evidence in order to be clear-thinking?

DAWKINS DOES NOT RUN THIS SITE. Sorry for the caps, but I am fed up with posters not comprehending this. I remember fondly Dawkins mentioning during some interview (think it was with the deceased Dickins) that this website is doing very well and is becoming a nice community, and he went go to say that he can say that, because he has NOTHING to do with the running of the site.

Dawkins does seem to be liberal based in his thinking which is what I have gleaned from his writings, but not rabidly so. He is more of a libertarian, in the sense that private matters are nobody's business except the people involved (particularly regarding sexual activity between consenting adults).

So philos, by boxing Dawkins as an liberal professor just because Dawkins is a professor, and then implying that Dawkins has some kind of liberal agenda for a website IN WHICH HE IS NOT INVOLVED IN, shows clearly that philos needs to learn how to be both clear thinking and opinionated at the same time.

And Briancoughlandworldcitizen, what happened, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today? You are close to being gracious in this thread!!!(;-)))

Other Comments by Logicel

38. Comment #30024 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 6, 2007 at 8:37 am

 avatarAnd Briancoughlandworldcitizen, what happened, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today? You are close to being gracious in this thread!!!(;_)))

Hey! I can be nice:-) Besides, no one is out and out saying all them scientists 'er paid off and workin' for the devil!! Or Ah don' beleive in global warmin'. Like what we beleive makes a blind bit of difference:-)

Still if they do show up, I can be friendly. I've reformed.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

39. Comment #30028 by ghostbuster on April 6, 2007 at 9:04 am

It's all about keeping your baloney detector clean; no matter where the baloney is coming from, one has to be able to detect it. Global Warming is appropriate on this site. Polite people were never to discuss politics or religion--too bad, they are the two dogmas that have f****d up the world.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

40. Comment #30044 by E_L_G on April 6, 2007 at 10:38 am

Philos,

At some point you have trade a little passion for the coin of the real world, which is cash. The forces of ignorance are very well funded. Religion is big business in the US and elsewhere. Building construction, stained glass, bibles, and hymnals all have producers, suppliers, distributers, employees, and supporting communities. Schools, colleges, universities, bureaucracies. To go up against this you need cash and lots of it. We have the Randi challenge. I don't see a lot of Templeton Fund size entities fighting for rationality, reason, and a dogma free world.

Other Comments by E_L_G

41. Comment #30068 by Veronique on April 6, 2007 at 4:54 pm

 avatarphilos - pardon my lack of lingo - what is an oak?

I am glad that you will join in these debates and forswear limiting parameters!:)

I don't think you should discount RD's passion in TGD. I couldn't read the book without being aware of the passion that emanated from the pages in regard to the devastation that is being wrought across the globe in the name of religion (well, I should add that there are other components, like oil, money, resources, territory, power grabs and the like).

As for money made from the book - surely he is allowed to do what he likes with the profits. Certainly no one ever mentioned any constraints on the profits garnered from the publication of any of his other 8 books, all of which sold (and still sell) extraordinarily well.

With a burgeoning amount of accessible material and communication systems, there is the capacity for all of us to be far more informed about a raft of disciplines, opinions and arguments than ever before. I think this is wonderful. The fact that RD's, Harris', Dennett's et al. books sell so well means that more people are accessing available information. That is all to the good.

This web site has stated that the forthcoming DVD sale proceeds will go to RD's Foundation. I see nothing sneaky about that. The disclosure is there. The Foundation is what needs funding, hell, I donated money to it months ago. If you read its charter, it is pretty clear. The dosh I contributed is my post-tax dollars. It will be recorded as income to the Foundation and tax will have to be paid on it. This underlines the advantage of organised religions in that they can exploit the rules pertaining to tax-free income.

Someone (probably many) said that if you want more cash, then start a religion, cult, sect or whatever you want to call these organisations, register the name and organisation as a church and sit back, watch the tithing and donations pour in. It's a little simplistic to put it in such a way, but you get my drift.

Indeed, the proliferation of cults and sects attests to that cynical monetary view.

How on earth do you fund something like the Patrick Henry colleges without private funding? You can't. Same with the Emmanuel Colleges - private plus public funding. How would you set up a college run by the Foundation for Reason and Science? Only by donations, I suspect. A very long haul to even lay the foundation stone for construction.

So don't begrudge the money going to the research arm of RD's organisational structure. You are doing it again; you don't like something that RD is doing, so you want him to change to reflect your yearning. Try to curb this tendency, if you will. It's not germane to anything that I can perceive.

Ghostbuster - I was told by my grandmother not to engage in discussions on religion, politics or sex in polite company.

And I reckon, all three are f*****g up the world. Mis education about sex is driving the AIDS/HIV epidemic in Africa (the old pope is in there too), the infestation of missionaries from all sects in that poor country hand out aid liberally laced with dogma.

Get a copy of the 2005 Massey lectures and listen to Stephen Lewis talking about Africa, HIV/AIDS and weep. There's an article on this site that describes the appalling situation in a particular instance.

Fedler - don't cringe. Politics, public exposure, left and right wing rabid political ideology is and will remain with us. It is wise to be and stay informed. These people are the legislators who do exert control on the lives of their constituencies - us. In Australia, the US and the UK, there are basically only two ideologically opposed political groups (sometimes and on some issues, mainly economics, it can be hard to tell them apart).

We would all agree here (I trust I am not being presumptuous) that education and, in particular, continuing education is the biggest force that we can rely on to keep us informed as to what is happening in this increasingly complicated world.

Time to feed my little alimentary canals and have a cuppa.

All the best
V

Other Comments by Veronique

42. Comment #30226 by cassdenata on April 7, 2007 at 8:43 am

It's funny to me that we are debating this issue, whether it is true. It is based on pretty simple science. It is well known that CO2 is the reason our planet is not frigid, without which we wouldn't be here AT ALL. It is well known that extremely destructive and unpleasant climate change has happened in the past and will happen in the future. It is well known that burning fossil fuels and deforestation releases CO2. It is well known that there are some sinks in the environment that retain that CO2 and buffer the system. But beyond that buffering capacity, it is expected that CO2 will rise and so will temperature. The rest is just specific details.

Other Comments by cassdenata

43. Comment #30227 by cassdenata on April 7, 2007 at 8:48 am

Oh ya and the Kary Mullis, the man who invented PCR is definitely the right guy to go to and discuss climactic and biogeochemical interactions between land, sea and air and the best way to model them. He is my go to guy. Did I mention that he believes he was encountered by an alien?

Other Comments by cassdenata

44. Comment #30359 by DavidJMH on April 7, 2007 at 8:14 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Doesn't anyone see a self regulating mechanism in the plus column. The overabundance of people is the fundemental cause of accelerated global warming. As the climate changes and becomes for many, noticeably the poor underdeveloped masses, a detriment to their survival, a large reduction in population could well be the result, thereby reducing the emissions. Whether we want it or not, worldwide conflagrations are on their way and certainly within this century. As ever, it is the healthy, strong and determined who will survive, no matter how much the liberal minded nature huggers may try to make it otherwise; pure Darwin, isn't it great. The more I drive my Roller the sooner it may happen.

Other Comments by DavidJMH

45. Comment #30367 by philos on April 7, 2007 at 9:26 pm

 avatarCassdenata:

Oh dear. I didn't hear about the alien :). That sounds alot more tame than the glowing raccoon he encountered in the mountains of California (both encounters, I am assuming, were due to drugs)

Here is Freeman Dyson's take on Global Warming:

Dyson has questioned the predictive value of current computational models of climate change, urging instead more extensive use of local observations. He considers this view to be "heretical", along with his views on the PhD system.

"The good news is that we are at last putting serious effort and money into local observations. Local observations are laborious and slow, but they are essential if we are ever to have an accurate picture of climate. The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than physics to represent important things like evaporation and convection, clouds and rainfall. Besides the general prevalence of fudge-factors, the latest and biggest climate models have other defects that make them unreliable. With one exception, they do not predict the existence of El Niño. Since El Niño is a major feature of the observed climate, any model that fails to predict it is clearly deficient. The bad news does not mean that climate models are worthless. They are, as Manabe said thirty years ago, essential tools for understanding climate. They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate."[14]

While he acknowledges climate change may be in part due to anthropogenic causes, such as the burning of fossil fuels, he regards the term "global warming" as a misnomer:

"As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger."[15]

Regarding political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change, Dyson argues that other global problems should take priority.

"I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being GROSSLY exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans."[16]

Other Comments by philos

46. Comment #30559 by cassdenata on April 8, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Here is a report that a colleague just sent me including his words about the report.

"Someone may have sent this out to the listserve before, but the following is a link to a page in which you can download what, in my mind, is the most definitive and objective paper about contemporary ethanol and biodiesel production in the US. The paper was published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences in June 2006, and the title is the "Environmental, Economic, and Energetic Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel and Ethanol Biofuels." It is essential reading for anyone who wants to contemplate the great promise and inherent limitations of biofuels."

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0604600103v1

Other Comments by cassdenata

47. Comment #31490 by Veronique on April 13, 2007 at 12:35 am

 avatarThis is an update on the bee disaster. I thought I'd post it here, because this thread is the most appropriate. I hope a number of you get to see this.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=21462

It's getting even more serious. An increasing number of countries are reporting high numbers of loss in their bee populations.

If it continues unchecked, then there won't be biofuels, at least from maize. In the long run, fertilisation figures drop. Then it's deep shit time.

V

Other Comments by Veronique

48. Comment #31620 by MemeOrandum on April 13, 2007 at 2:02 pm

First of all sorry to enter this debate so late. Seems I missed out some of the good parts...:-)

2007 is appointed to be a Polar Year. Just before Easter, Science Magazine reported that as the Arctic melts, the bordering nations are queueing up to get their share of the potential offshore resources. Apparently, echo soundings of the sea bottom has already been made to search for... Yup! Fossil fuels.

MemeO

Other Comments by MemeOrandum
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com